U.S. Constitutionalist

THE REPUBLIC IS DEAD; WE ARE READY TO FIGHT, NOW WHAT?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:09:00 +0000

My dear God, how is it possible that the Attorney General’s office is staffed by radicals and rights robbers? How is it that Eric Holder, a radical political leftist shames us daily by walking into his office? Add to that a supremely incompetent Janet Napolitano, racist Planned Parenthood supporter Sebelius, bumbling Biden and on and on and on. ...

I am afraid that the time has arrived for Americans to decide that the robbery of their nation can no longer be tolerated. To cede one more inch of freedom’s last acre is 50 million acres too much. To allow the enslavement of our children by a government pretending to be our benefactor is a crime that must be avenged. That is why we are in the field with you. We will do our best to help you get through this national nightmare. All we ask is that you stand with us in prayer and roll up your sleeves. It’s time to till the soil. ...

By Greg Evensen - Nov. 1, 2009 - NewsWithViews.com

Guess who's now banned from Capitol Christmas tree!

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:28:00 +0000

[The Forest Service is in violation of the First Amendment. The Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not bless this nation in light of such near blasphemy. The American people must oppose this pagan act of disrespect toward the Lord Jesus Christ, or, the American people must expect further erosion of the well being of this nation, straight to the pits of Hell, where we are already headed. Scoffers can disagree with this warning. To be sure, judgment awaits. - ed.]

Forest Service forbids 'religious themes' on 5,000 decorations recognizing holiday - By Bob Unruh - © 2009 WorldNetDaily - Oct. 1, 2009 - The U.S. Forest Service has banned the name of Jesus from decorations being assembled by children in Arizona for a blue spruce from the state that will become the Capitol Christmas Tree this year, and a legal firm is challenging the censorship.

"Banning Christmas from the Capitol Christmas tree is just absurd. Christian students shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs," said Jonathan Scruggs, litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

"The First Amendment does not allow government officials to exclude schoolchildren's ornaments for the capitol's Christmas tree merely because they communicate a religious viewpoint," he said yesterday. ...

U.S. To Break Up Soon?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:35:00 +0000

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - Sept. 29, 2009

According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, "'Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,' he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs--and everyone will get their piece. 'The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,' said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow's Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

MRT went on to report, "Panarin came up with his grim forecast while analyzing the parallels between the Soviet Union in its final days and the current situation in the United States. 'American dream ballooned seven times in 11 years. During Gorbachev era, the Soviet dream ballooned five times.' Americans hope [President] Barack Obama 'can work miracles,' he wrote. 'But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.'"

See the MRT report at
http://tinyurl.com/mrt-report

The Drudge Report confirmed the MRT report and added, "Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA . . . 'The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.'"

At least some of what Panarin said back in the fall of 2008 either has taken place or is in the process of taking place. Drudge reported, "When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: 'It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.'"

Drudge continued reporting Panarin as saying that "the U.S. will break up into six parts-- the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong."

Panarin further suggested that Russia might even "claim Alaska."

See an archived version of Drudge's report at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/readarchive_20090107.html

Reporting on the same story, The Wall Street Journal said, "Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russian relations."

The WSJ goes on to say that Panarin believes that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar."

See The Wall Street Journal report at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

This is not the first time that Comrade Panarin has made such a prediction. Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily, noted in December of 2008 that Panarin has been making similar projections for the past ten years. In a column regarding Panarin's predictions, Farah wrote, "Until recently, no one took him very seriously. And then came the economic calamity that has rocked Americans and the rest of the world, too. Now, Panarin's predictions of an end of the United States, due to economic and moral collapse, is being taken seriously by many."

Read Farah's column at
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84884

So, will the United States break up in 2010? Or 2011? Or 2012? Or anytime in the near future, for that matter? If history is any teacher, the chances would seem good that Panarin's predictions may be closer to reality than anyone would like to admit.

A historian and linguist from South Africa recently wrote me a fascinating letter, in which he chronicled the major world empires of history, dating the time of their rise and fall. Here is what his calculations look like:

Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.

My honorable historian-friend calculates America's reign using its post-Revolutionary War years. He notes that America's reign is currently at 219 years. He further notes that the average duration of every world superpower listed above is a little over 238 years.

One does not need to be a master mathematician or possess a Ph.D. to realize that America is fast approaching the mark in which every major world power in history has either collapsed or, at a minimum, lost its world leadership and power.

My friend also reminded me of his homeland's (South Africa's) demise. He told me that he noticed the handwriting on the wall in time to relocate his family to a more peaceful and stable European country. Many of his friends and countrymen were not so fortunate, however, and thousands were killed and their properties confiscated. He then warned me, "The period of Grace is closing, in what is your homeland."

In addition, serious students of Holy Writ are also struck with the similarities between societal conditions in America and those of Old Testament Israel (as well as with Gentile nations) at those times of divine judgment and retribution. As someone trenchantly said, "If God spares the United States, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Will the Russian analyst's prophecies come true in 2010? Probably not. Does that mean that America is impervious to some sort of national demise? Not at all. Is America already in serious trouble? You bet. Could there be some sort of break-up within the United States in the near future? In my opinion, that is a very realistic probability. If this happens, will freedom suffer? Almost certainly. Will those with tyrannical tendencies use the opportunity of any national disaster to try and enslave us? They already do. I personally do not believe that there is any "If" to the question. The only questions are, "When?" and "To what degree?"

And, of course, there is another question: "When the break-up comes, how many Americans understand the principles of liberty enough, and are personally prepared enough, and are willing enough to resist whatever power it may be that seeks to place us under the thumb of oppression and fight for the same protections and vanguards of liberty that first established this land?" Obviously, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, isn't it?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090929.html

[by permission]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

[Considering the level of accuracy in the above column, this blog still cautions against setting dates about America's future. It's in God's Hands. - ed.]

It Is Going To Be A Rocky Road

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:34:00 +0000

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - Sept. 22, 2009

Let's face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S. population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know what it's like to not have some sort of "supercenter" nearby with shelves stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a megabuck obsession.

Modern living within the world's only "superpower" has created a giant unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.

Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it decided it didn't need God, either.

It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a "Ban God" bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus' name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.

Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren't paying attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.

First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I'm not concentrating on the "why" or "who's right or wrong" of the equation. I'm simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this could be our future.)

Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this year, America's budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for America's fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).

It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)

Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of "government solution." If they keep hyping this "pandemic," mass hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for), and martial law.

Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans are totally unprepared for what's coming.

If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you don't have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don't have some kind of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm's-way location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina"?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.

Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government is far, far away. You know, like America's Founding Fathers did 233 years ago.

In the meantime, get ready. It's going to be a rocky road.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090922.html

[by permission]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

Dr. Baldwin was the 2008 Constitution Party candidate for President of the United States. Chuck Baldwin's archived columns are reprinted here to give the U.S. Constitutionalist a point of view different from that of the mainstream media and the autocratic establishment parties. Disclaimer: Neither Chuck Baldwin, Darrell Castle, nor the Constitution Party approve or endorse this blog.

Constitution Day - 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:00:00 +0000

A "Living Constitution" for a Dying Republic

by Mark Alexander
The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)

From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 37; Published 16 September, 2005 - "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ... Done...the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven." — George Washington and the delegates

On 17 September of each year, we observe Constitution Day, in recognition of the anniversary of that venerable document's signing by our nation's Founders. Of course, most of the federal judiciary pay no homage to that date. They are preoccupied rewriting the so-called "Living Constitution," amending it by judicial diktat rather than its prescribed method in Article V.

For its first 150 years (with the notable exception Marbury v. Madison in 1803), our Constitution stood as our Founders, and more importantly, "the people," intended -- as is -- in accordance with its original intent. In other words, it was interpreted exegetically rather than eisegetically, textually as constructed, not what could be read into it by later generations of jurists.

In the early 20th Century, there was still evidence of reverence for the supreme law of the land. For example, prohibitionists acknowledged that the Constitution did not include a single word about alcohol consumption and would have to be amended before the central government would have the authority to outlaw alcohol. On 16 January 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified by the states. Within the decade the law of unintended consequences prevailed, and even ardent prohibitionists realized that enforcing the 18th Amendment had spawned a massive and violent organized-crime culture. Thus, on 5 December 1933, the 21st Amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th.

These two amendments were the last pertaining most directly to the authority of the central government, while the remaining five address specific modifications to the plain language of our Constitution. So how is it now that the central government has become the behemoth our Constitution expressly prohibited?

Prior to the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the courts were still largely populated with originalists, who properly rendered legal interpretation based on construction of the Constitution's "original intent." However, FDR grossly exceeded the Constitutional limits upon the authority of his office and that of the legislature in his folly to end The Great Depression (the latter falling victim to World War II -- not FDR's social and economic engineering). FDR's extra-constitutional exploits opened the door for the judiciary to follow the same path -- to read into the Constitution what was necessary to make it conform to the demands of the prevailing political will.

In the decades that followed, the notion of a "Living Constitution," one subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, took hold in the federal courts. Judicial activists, those who legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, or at the behest of likeminded special-interest constituencies, were nominated for the federal bench and confirmed in droves.

This degradation of law was codified by the Warren Court in Trop v. Dulles (1958). In that ruling, the High Court noted that the Constitution should comport with "evolving standards...that mark the progress of a maturing society." In other words, it had now become a fully pliable document. Indeed, the Constitution has become "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please," as Thomas Jefferson warned, and the judiciary, in Jefferson's words, "the Despotic Branch".

Consequently, we now have a Constitution in exile, it having becoming little more than a straw man as the courts have become increasingly politicized, serving the special interests of political constituencies rather than interpreting the plain language of our Constitution, as judges are, by oath, sworn to do (Article VI, Section 3).

The Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution's original intent, clearly define original intent in regards to Constitutional interpretation. Founders James Madison (our Constitution's principle author), Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, published the Federalist Papers in order to clearly delineate the parameters of the proposed Constitution.

In regard to the role of the judiciary, Federalist Paper No. 73, notes, "Judges...by being often associated with the Executive...might be induced to embark too far in the political views of that magistrate, and thus a dangerous combination might by degrees be cemented between the executive and judiciary departments. It is impossible to keep the judges too distinct from every other avocation than that of expounding the laws. It is peculiarly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupted or influenced by the Executive."

Federalist No. 78 further notes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."

And in no uncertain terms, Federalist No. 81 makes abundantly clear, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...."

George Washington advised, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."

Today, two centuries hence, Justice Antonin Scalia says of judicial activism, "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

The most insidious line of activist interpretations concerns our Constitution's First Amendment. Invoking Jefferson's "Wall of Separation," the Despotic Branch has endeavored to remove any vestigial remnant of faith from all quarters of the public square at the federal, state and local level.

Of course, the First Amendment states only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The errant interpretation of the "wall" metaphor puts liberty in great peril.

Our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate guidance, our Constitution, are based on natural law, and outline the natural rights of man as being from our Creator, not manmade.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are natural rights "endowed by our Creator," not government. Likewise, our Constitution was written and ratified "in order secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As such, it established a republic ruled by laws, not men.

Indeed, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

However, if the expression of faith is banished from all government forums, not the least of which being schools, then how long will "the people" continue to understand that these "inalienable rights" are, in Jefferson's words, "the gift of God"?

The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist concluded, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."

George Washington proclaimed, "[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?"

That is a question we should all be asking today.

While the words "conservative" and "liberal" are ubiquitously used to describe Republicans and Democrats respectively, these words properly should describe whether one advocates for the conservation of our Constitution, as originally intended, or its liberal interpretation by judicial activists. Does one want to conserve Constitutional limits on the central government, or liberate those limits?

Our Constitution established a Republic intended to reflect the consent of the governed, a nation of laws, not men.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the delegates formed "a republic or a monarchy." He responded, "A republic if you can keep it."

To that end, John Adams wrote, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

See other essays regarding the assault on our Constitution by the judiciary at http://PatriotPost.US/papers/#anchor2 and we invite you to observe Constitution Day by visiting an excellent resource on our nation's heritage. Link to The Patriot's Historic Documents, and see our excellent selection of Constitutional items at our Patriot Shop

Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Patriot Post's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The Patriot Post is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Patriot Post's highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don't leave home without it!

Subscribe to The Patriot Post -- It's right and it's free!

Hooligans on the Hill return Tue., Sept. 8, 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:25:00 +0000

MAJOR BILLS TO DEFEAT AFTER AUGUST RECESS - By Devvy - Aug. 31, 2009 - © 2009 - NewsWithViews.com - The outlaws (Congress) will be back in session, September 8, 2009. Americans have been watching and participating in 'tea parties' throughout the states; see this short video of one in Sacramento. Some members of Congress have vocalized what many of these crooks, cowards and outright nitwits in Congress have been thinking: There is a revolution underway. It's about time. Those of us who have been in the lonely trenches for decades hope everyone can concentrate on the critical issues and tune out the distractions - political bickering. Time is of the essence. As I have written so many times: We are in the fight for our very survival, both as a nation and in our personal lives. ...

The Marbury v. Madison Mantra

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:26:00 +0000

The following essay is the clearest explanation known to this blog of the difference between a totalitarian, nationalist, superstate and a federal republic, constitutionally established. Further, we note here, just ahead of Constitution Day, Thurs., Sept. 17, that THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The concept of democracy spews forth from the mouths of Satan's minions, whoever and wherever they are. Whoever utters that ugly word, democracy, you should regard as your worst enemy. You will find through little effort that all "democrats" are socialist, globalist, secular humanist elitists who would rule your every breath, as they have sought to do since the days of the failed Greek city-states. May you never forget that, as long as you have freedom of thought. Do you, by chance, know how long that will be? - R.A.S., assoc. ed.

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin's Son, Timothy Baldwin - Sept. 1, 2009

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America's foremost defenders of State sovereignty.]

The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they are as philosophical in nature as the Declaration of Independence. One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Before getting into the misunderstandings and misapplications of that infamous decision, we must first recognize the source and character of Marshall's opinion. As Marshall himself admitted that the US is to be a country of "laws, not men," we must establish that Marshall's opinion does not equate to the "supreme law of the land" which the states and individuals are bound to obey. If our submission only requires that the US S CT speak, then we do not live as freemen, but as slaves.

Marshall was an ardent member of the Federalist Party (a pro-centralist party) and served as the Secretary of State in the pro-centralist administration of President John Adams, who appointed Marshall to the US S CT in 1801 at the "midnight" hour before Thomas Jefferson was sworn into office as President of the US. Marshall's nationalist opinions were no secret either. Marshall believed that the US Constitution and Union were formed by the aggregate whole of the American people, and not by a compact of the states; that the Union formed "one nation, indivisible" and not a confederation of states; that State sovereignty as expressed in the Tenth Amendment equated more to a general idea than to any real applicable and relevant State power over the federal government; that the Constitution must be liberally interpreted for the sake of expanding federal powers at the expense of State sovereignty; and that the idea of State sovereignty was literally ridiculous. By the way, even most self-called conservatives today probably subscribe to these political beliefs, not even knowing the real historical facts behind such fallacious ideology.

Concerning Marshall's philosophical belief relative to the formation of the USA, this historical fact must be admitted. It is crucially important for our discussion today in America. Historian and politically-motivated author, Edward Samuel Corwin, said of Marshall in his book, "John Marshall and the Constitution" (New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1920), p. 34: "[Marshall's] attitude [to strengthen the national power and to curtail State legislative power] was determined not only by his sympathy for the sufferings of his former comrades in arms and by his veneration for his father and for Washington . . . but also by his military experience, which had RENDERED THE PRETENSIONS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RIDICULOUS IN HIS EYES." (Emphasis added.) There is no question that Marshall had a pre-destined belief against State sovereignty in favor of national power. Corwin describes Marshall's political belief regarding the US as a "nationalistic creed."

So, is the nationalistic political persuasion of one man (appointed by a nationalistic President) and one court to form the basis of the true understanding of the nature and character of the USA? After all, Marshall admitted that the US is established by the rule of law, and not the rule of men. So, by Marshall's own definition in Marbury v. Madison, a US S CT opinion does not establish law, but rather should reflect what the paramount law already is: "The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, "Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!" I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway.

Since 1803, the nationalists have pointed to Marshall's declaration to conclusively say the states have no power over the opinion of the US S CT, for as Marshall states: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." From this, most American lawyers and law students come to the conclusion that there is no authority above and beyond the US S CT's interpretation of the US Constitution. Whatever the US S CT rules becomes "settled law" and the states are completely bound--of course, unless the US S CT says something different later. I was taught this in law school and every other ABA-accredited law school in America teaches this. But a true legal study of Marbury v. Madison reveals that Marshall's opinion (which was actually dicta) never addressed the issue of State sovereignty whatsoever. American historian, Forrest McDonald, reveals this fact in his book, "State's Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876." McDonald states, "Marshall was careful not to claim that the Supreme Court was the SOLE or FINAL ARBITER of acts of Congress." (Emphasis added.) Ibid., (Lawrence, KS, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2000), p. 56. This is, in fact, the case.

Perhaps most telling about Marshall's silence on the issue of being the sole or final arbiter is the fact that just a few years prior to his decision, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, had advocated the State's ability to actively nullify and resist unconstitutional actions from the federal government. Since Marshall's opinion was mostly dicta anyway--meaning it had no relevance to the issue at hand--why not go ahead and state that the US S CT is the ONLY final arbiter of the US Constitution? But Marshall never did, and neither has any US S CT decision since Marbury v. Madison.

Thus, when someone suggests that the states possess the sovereign power to arrest federal encroachments outside of constitutionally enumerated powers, the nationalists emphatically argue their unsupported conclusion that the USA is one nation, indivisible, where the US S CT possesses the sole authority as the final arbiter on all matters politically relative to the US Constitution, and to suggest otherwise is treason!--even when the most authoritative sources have been so pointedly laid out to the contrary. Marshall's opinions have not settled this matter, and the USA must come to grips with who we are, what we are and how we are.

What's more, Marshall's opinions of national expansion were conclusively derived from one main principle: that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people and not by individual states through a compact. This fact was admitted by Marshall-lover, Corwin, in 1920. Corwin clearly expresses this point as follows:

"The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of the Constitution from the side of national power . . . were the following: '(1) THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT A COMPACT OF THE STATES. (2) Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty. (3) The Constitution was further designed . . . to be kept a commodious vehicle of the nation life . . . . (4) [The national government] is a sovereign government, both in its choice of the means by which to exercise its power and in its supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers. (5) The powers of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has not acted. (6) The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme authority of the people of the United States.' Of these several principles, THE FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TO A GREAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF THE OTHERS." "John Marshall and the Constitution," pp. 144-145. (Emphasis added.)

Corwin admits that all of Marshall's opinions were based upon the presumption that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people as one body politic, and not by the individual, sovereign states via a compact. From this premise comes the vast expansion of federal power under the guise of constitutionality. Thus, if it were to be contrarily presumed that the USA is in fact a compact acceded to by the states, then the rules of interpretation that Marshall and subsequent US S CT justices used were wrong and require a different outcome. This fact cannot be overstated and is the source of all of the federal tyranny that many of you reading this article complain about. Thus, it behooves Americans to truly know WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR UNION: is it a National government formed by the whole people, or is it a compact among the states and acceded to by the states (otherwise known as a Confederacy)?

This article does not allow me to expound upon this subject in great depth, but it should be sufficient at this point at least to call into question Marshall's presupposition regarding the nature and character of the USA by referring to some of the most authoritative sources on the subject during the formation of the US Constitution. Let us start with James Madison, who was one of the Federalist Paper authors and considered to be the Father of the US Constitution. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison examines the nature and character of the formation of the Union under the US Constitution. He admits that the US was formed by a federative (league of states) and NOT a national act. Madison proclaims:

"[T]he Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING ONE ENTIRE NATION, BUT AS COMPOSING THE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT STATES TO WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY BELONG. It is to be the ASSENT AND RATIFICATION of the SEVERAL STATES . . . The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

"That it will be a federal and NOT A NATIONAL ACT . . . THE ACT OF THE PEOPLE, AS FORMING SO MANY INDEPENDENT STATES, NOT AS FORMING ONE AGGREGATE NATION, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SEVERAL STATES that are parties to it . . . [T]he new Constitution will . . . be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." (Emphasis added.)

Madison pens in the clearest of terms that the US Constitution is a compact assented to by the State sovereigns in their legal capacities as individual bodies politic, and NOT as one mass of people, forming one body politic. If this were not enough to at least raise a serious question as to what has been shoved down our throats for 150 years, consider that even Alexander Hamilton confirms that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, and NOT a national act of the whole people. He says in Federalist Paper 85:

"To its complete establishment throughout the Union, [the US Constitution] will therefore REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF THIRTEEN STATES . . . [T]he necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the COMPACT . . . WE MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO ERECT BARRIERS AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.)

Just in these two short excerpts from Founding Fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, we see that Marshall's premise that the USA is a nation formed by the whole of the people and not by the compact of the states is seriously called into question, which, of course, calls into question all of the principles of constitutional interpretation and resulting conclusions which derive from that false premise.

An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, "questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT." (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign--the people--and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090901.html

[by permission - emphasis added]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

Economic Collapse - 2009 (video)

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:18:00 +0000

Bank Runs, China, Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser - Max Kaiser speaks about the predicted bank run and currency destruction of the US economy. He also speaks about how China will be on top of the depression because they are spending their stimulus on domestic growth. Peter Schiff makes a guest appearance, as well as Gerald Celente. ... (video - 8:03, via BlacklistedNews.com)

video courtesy: captplanut

How to defeat ObamaCare/KennedyKare

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:13:00 +0000

Resist and defeat the Power Elite's grab for power, wherein they seek to destroy Americans' individual liberty and your national sovereignty. Grassfire.org has provided you the informational ammunition with which to combat the globalist, socialist, new world order agenda.

Right now, on the front burner at Grassfire's special web site, are your talking points for the fight against a socialist takeover of our health care system, and the TAXPAYER MARCH ON D.C., September 12, 2009.

It's ResistNet.com, and this blog urges you to use its resources to do your part for self-preservation. Please act now. Tomorrow will too late. - ed.

I have finally figured out Obamacare:

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

Never fear: we have our best people working on it!

(Author unknown)

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:30:00 +0000

by Declan McCullagh - Aug. 28, 2009

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. ...

MORE ON INTERNMENT CAMPS

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:28:00 +0000

By Dr. Chuck Baldwin - Aug. 28, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.html

I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?

Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it at

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292

Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/04/16/news/news1.txt

[article continues below, following this related video]

This video was taken on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009 at Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) Town Hall meeting on Obama Deathcare (Howie Dean was there too) held at South Lakes High School in Reston, VA.

Many people were left outside when the school filled to capacity. School security officer Wesley Cheeks, Jr. did not like my anti-Obamacare poster which used one of the gone-viral "Joker" graphics.

When I said to Officer Cheeks, "This used to be America!" his response was: "It ain't no more, OK?"

I feel sorry for Officer Cheeks. He, like many African-Americans are being played by the racist Obama administration. Wake up people. They used to want you only for your votes, but now with the huge hispanic illegals pouring in they won't even need you for that. Watch those inner city abortion clinics get stimulated though. Democrat and church leaders sure seem to have time and money to build those.

Google "margaret sangar black children eugenics" (no quotes) and find out what's REALLY behind those Democrat abortuariums run by Planned Parenthood. Democrat eugenicists like Rahm Emanuel and his brother Zeke "Dr. Mengele" Emanuel and John Holdren and George Soros and Mr. Abortion himself, Barack Obama can't kill enough black babies. The ovens are fired up. Wake up people.

Satan is in da house.

Join www.accdf.com and get ACTIVE. Let's roll.

video - 01:36 / courtesy: DissentFromDayOne - Aug. 27, 2009

Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé" published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report at

Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.

One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.

"We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis added.)

(To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites:

http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )

Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.

Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments at

http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law

And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations?" See the report at

http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps

Is all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?

On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late" to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.

For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/11/p27662

http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps

http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)

Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.

Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.

Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."

(See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )

As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.

In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"

Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."

Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.' They DO exist."

Flynn replied, "They do."

(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )

Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.

America's founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms--even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you've lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090828.html

From earlier this year on this blog, please see:
FEMA Camps? Slave State? 1984? You want proof? [Glenn Beck, perhaps you should do better research. - ed.]

[by permission]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

What "They" insist you accept here in America

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:26:00 +0000

Read it, and weep: Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications - Wed., Aug. 26, 2009 - By Matt Cover (CNSNews.com) – Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC. ...

Summer of reflection - updated: Aug. 20, 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:00 +0000

LIBERTY WARNINGS:

Totalitarian government, here we come - by Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld - Aug. 20, 2009 - We are being told by our would-be masters in Washington that all of this is needed so government servants can better serve us at lower cost. Has all of the data gathered by the educators improved public education? The fact is that it has done just the opposite. One thing is certain: If the American people want to stop this Obama overdrive toward totalitarianism, they'd better kill this horrible national health care scheme before it even gets off the ground. ...

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' [from its so-called Health Care Reform putsch; perhaps American citizen "terrorists" are having an impact, after all. - ed.] Aug. 16, 2009

'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say? 'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all' - By Chelsea Schilling - Aug. 14, 2009 - No powers can be exercised by the Congress which are prohibited by the Constitution or which are contrary to its spirit. – Justice John McLean, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 - Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional? Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care. ... [followed by links to more than 40 related stories - ed.]

White House Making Subtle Policy Changes to Spy on Americans - By Bill Wilson - Aug. 14, 2009 - Jesus said of the end times in Matthew 24:10, "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another and shall hate one another." Your own government is betraying you, is at war with you, and if you believe in end time prophecies, it lists you as a possible terrorist. ...

THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAS ARRIVED - By Betty Freauf - Aug. 12, 2009 - You’ve heard President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel’s statement about never passing up a crisis? The disgruntled grass roots are rising up against any government health care plan. House speaker Pelosi and others are calling the uprising “Astroturfing” suggesting that it really isn’t true grassroots but some organization behind the scenes are doing what Barack Obama did as a “community organizer” and now that the tables are turned on them by individuals and not collective actions by some community organizer, they are perplexed.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE - By Devvy - Aug. 10, 2009 - These craven jackals in Congress have become fearful of the American people exercising their right to demand their elected representatives in Congress do what they want, not what special interests pay these prostitutes to do for them. As a result, the usual propaganda has been unleashed on the "mobs" attending town hall meetings. Americans who understand what is at stake are being attacked with the precision of what was done in Stalinist Russia. ...

Federal Government at War with US Citizens; Goal to Institute Socialism Without Firing a Shot - By Bill Wilson - Aug. 10, 2009 - People who read the health care socialization bill are afraid of the facts, because the fact is that the bill introduces complete socialism in America. But those opposing it are the true patriots. Jesus said in Matthew 24:4 - "Take heed that no man deceive you." Yes, take heed, your government is at war with you. It is time to fight back. ...

Military to Deploy on U.S. Soil to "Assist" with Pandemic Outbreak - By Mike Adams - July 30, 2009 - Until now, what I'm about to tell you would have been easily dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It's the kind of story that you might expect from some extreme fringe blogger... the kind of story that never appears in the mainstream media. Only today, it did. And it's not a conspiracy theory, either. ...

Exploiting Public Ignorance - By Walter E. Williams - July 30, 2009 - Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? What we’re witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation’s founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress. ...

THE DEATH OF LIBERTY: THE FINAL SCENE UNFOLDS - By Greg Evensen - July 29, 2009 - I continue to be at a loss to explain how it is that so many tens of millions of amerikans simply do not see the utter destruction of their former republic by socialists, one worlders, deviates, liars and thieves. The men in black have been roving the country flashing their memory erasers around the clock. Let’s take a check on how things are really going. ...

Destroying the Economy to Institute Socialism - By Bill Wilson - July 29, 2009 - This Administration could very well be destroying the free market system, knowing that people will have no place to turn except to the government - a government that will institute socialism. The question of what to do looms. We must be vocal. We must exercise our ballot options. We must arise to a revolutionary activity level. And we must pray and act out of righteousness rather than fear. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love and of a sound mind." Time to pray. Time to act. ...

Plan for World Government Stalled - by Jurriaan Maessen - July 28, 2009 - Here [Thomas G.] Weiss brings us good tidings from his transnational headquarters. He acknowledges that the journey towards world government is not going as well as planned, and the sleeping giant is unmistakably showing signs of wakening from his unperturbed slumber. ...

Council On Foreign Relations - by James Perloff - July 23, 2009 - The CFR’s goal was formation of an incrementally stronger world government. Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government." ...

Misleading America on Healthcare Reform Is Polite for Lying - By Bill Wilson - July 23, 2009 - Elected leaders are supposed to lead, not mislead. But that is exactly what the man who occupies the Oval Office (OOO) did in his news conference about health care - he misled the American people. In his opening remarks, he said, "you have the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it. It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage." Not exactly. ...

Congressional Crooks: Why won't Congress enroll in gov't health care? - By Chelsea Schilling - July 23, 2009 - The Affordable Health Choices Act drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee pushes "Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls," the Wall Street Journal reports. ... At the same time, Page 114 of the act specifically exempts members of Congress from the public plan. ... The bill mandates that all other Americans enroll in "qualified" health plans and submit proof of enrollment to the government. ...

Barack, What Happened to All the Change You Promised? - video/3:54 - John W. Whitehead - July 22, 2009

You're (Probably) a Federal Criminal - by Brian Walsh - FOXNews.com - July 21, 2009 - Laws like this are dangerous in the hands of social engineers and ambitious lawmakers -- not to mention overzealous prosecutors -- bent on using government's greatest civilian power to punish any activity they dislike. So many thousands of criminal offenses are now in federal law that a prominent federal appeals court judge titled his recent essay on this overcriminalization problem, "You're (Probably) a Federal Criminal." ...

Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government

(video - 1hr, 9min) - July 18, 2009 - via BlackListedNews.com
[video is loaded with lies - ed.]

"Hate Crimes" Amendment Added to Defense Authorization Act - Would give special preferences to homosexuals over military - Washington, DC - July 17, 2009 - Late last night, the Senate voted 63-28 to attach the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). The Defense Act addresses funding for the U.S. military, but it now includes an amendment that would give special protections to individuals based on their “perceived or actual” sexual orientation and gender identity. ...

It's Not That Hard [Liberty] - by Jason A. Edwards - July 16, 2009 - We need to get the government out of our way. Only then can we have a full recovery - as an economy and as a nation. The secret to recovery is a dramatic cut in spending, a dramtic cut in taxation across the board on every level, and enacting trade policies that do not put America last. It's not that hard! ...

Socialist America sinking - by Pat Buchanan - July 16, 2009 - "The United States is declining as a nation and a world power with mostly sighs and shrugs to mark this seismic event," writes Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine. "Astonishingly, some people do not appear to realize that the situation is all that serious." Even the establishment is starting to get the message. ...

Grand Delusion - Judgment is coming for those under this delusion. David Wilkerson warns us that "the false prophets that now preach the worst deception are economists, government statisticians, politicians, experts, and slumbering shepherds. God will allow them to be deceived and be deluded by lies. He will blind their eyes and send upon them helpless bewilderment. They will be the benign agents of satan to deceive and mislead this wicked nation. With distortions, false predictions, lying promises, they will lull the nation with a false sense of security." ...

TYRANNY! Are Dems trying to sneak 'hate crimes' through? - by Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - July 15, 2009

Heathens teach your children: NEA flexes 'political muscle,' backs same-sex 'marriage' - by Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - July 15, 2009

America is insane - By Lynn Stuter - July 14, 2009 - Better yet, how about we give them a taste of their own medicine. Insane people, under universal health care, are deemed "useless eaters" and useless eaters are allowed to die to save money. ... The usurper in the Oval Office, the occupier of the White House, and his minions in government, have declared war on the United States of America. ... We have a choice; we can either fight to win or we can do nothing and lose our nation and our freedom.

Fraud, Treason and Marxism - By JB Williams - July 14, 2009 - "When Obama goes down for defrauding an entire nation, an entire world for that matter, he’s going to take a lot of fellow conspirators with him. ..."

50 Reasons Why We Are Living in the End Times: Part 1 - By Dr. David R. Reagan - "There are so many of these signs today, in fact, that one would have to be either biblically illiterate or spiritually blind not to realize that we are living on borrowed time. ..." - July 13, 2009

Obligation to Defend the Constitution of the United States - by Lee Boyland - July 11, 2009

Good For Nothing Christians - by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - July 10, 2009

Earth's Final Days - by Ron Graham - July 10, 2009

Government-Run Health Care? You First! - by Bobby Eberle - July 9, 2009

Pure Terror: A NWO with Real Teeth?

DEPRESSION - are we in one? - video - July 8, 2009

Age Of Despotism - by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - July 7, 2009

Great Total Solar Eclipse of 2009 - July 22 - By J.R. Church - July 7, 2009

ISRAEL RUMBLES - By Bill Salus - July 7, 2009

What Must I Do to be Saved? - By J. R. Church

Will Israel Strike Iran? - By Hal Lindsey - July 6, 2009

PASS ACT - REAL ID - DANGER TO LIBERTY - JULY 6, 2009

Alex Jones' latest publicity stunt - by Matt Jarvie - July 6, 2009

The End of Independence Day? - by Mary Grabar - July 4, 2009

A Christian Citizen’s Responsibilities - by Dr. Charles Stanley - July 4, 2009

Does the Flag Still Wave? - By Hal Lindsey - July 3, 2009

Silence and Treason Against God and Country - By Bill Wilson - July 3, 2009

JULY 8:   Energy Independence Day Rallies and Video Contest -
T. Boone Pickens' PickensPlan.com - 6-30-09

Freedom Ain't Free - by Chuck Missler - July 2, 2009

Why a Bill of Rights? - By Walter E. Williams - July 2, 2009

NEA to consider full support of homosexual 'marriage' - July 2, 2009 - Your children are in great danger. - ed.

God, America, and the Economy - By Richard Booker - July 1, 2009

S.909 - POLICE STATE TYRANNY - UK, then Amerika - July 1, 2009

The two party system has failed America - by Shawn Connors - June 30, 2009

Mr. Sunshine? Ron Paul Wins Support to Audit Fed Reserve - FOX - June 30, 2009

REVOLUTION COMING IN AMERICA - LEOs: OATH KEEPERS - background on unrest in America - June 30, 2009

N.A.I.S., FRIEND AND FOE - by Lynn Stuter - June 30, 2009

RFID implants = 666? - June 29, 2009

HOMELAND SECURITY AND US ARMY PLAN INVASION OF STATES - by Jim Kouri - June 26, 2009

HELL IN AMERICA:  Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf - by Warner Todd Huston - June 26, 2009 [Revolt, people. - ed.]

4 Key Reasons an Economic Collapse is Likely Imminent - June 25, 2009

Conservatism Won't Save America - By Jan Markell - June 24, 2009

Bankster “Holiday” Planned for September? - by Kurt Nimmo - June 22, 2009

Bank Holiday Coming? Prepare? - from Harry Schultz - June 21, 2009

Calling all kooks - by Patrice Lewis - June 20, 2009

Put BIG BROTHER in prison! - By Bob Livingston - June 19, 2009

Healthcare: Obama's Waterloo? - By Dick Morris - June 18, 2009

Constitution Party Opposes Sotomayor Confirmation - June 17, 2009

Plan For Socialist World Government - By Cliff Kincaid - June 17, 2009

Obamunists Working Fast To Implement Dangerous Policies - TVC - June 17, 2009

New White House Proposals Aimed at Restricting Economic and Religious Freedom - By Bill Wilson - June 17, 2009

Stop the Dictatorship Now! - By Janet Porter - June 16, 2009

Why Perilous Times Are Now in Overdrive - By Jan Markell - June 16, 2009

The Real Crisis Is Obamacare - By Alan Caruba - June 16, 2009

Robert Prechter predicts Depression II - June 16, 2009

Record Lows Coming for Stock Market - Glenn Neely - June 16, 2008

NSA has ability to collect, read domestic e-mails of Americans on widespread basis - NYT - June 16, 2009

Prophecy Clock Ticks Forward with Reaction to Netanyahu's Speech - By Bill Wilson - June 16, 2009  &  Jerusalem: Trigger to Armageddon - By Terry James - June 15, 2009

Dr. Ron Paul On Reforming Health Care - video - June 15, 2009

The American Empire is Bankrupt - June 15, 2009

War Is the Likely Outcome of the Iranian Elections - By Joel C. Rosenberg - June 15, 2009

END TIMES MADE SIMPLE - By Jack Kelley - June 14, 2009

Greater Depression Coming: Doug Casey - June 14, 2009

Global downturn worse than expected - Martin Wolf commentary, 23-min audio on BBC - June 14, 2009

Christians, here come the lion - by Pat Boone - June 13, 2009

How to get ready for the End until HE comes - By Greg Evensen - June 13, 2009

What in the world has happened to us? - by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - June 12, 2009

The Late Great United States - By Mark Hitchcock - June 11, 2009

Obama's "Gangster" Government

in Congress, June 10, 2009

The Man of Sin and the New World Order  &  A Spirit Of Antichrist And The Era Of Obama - By Thomas Horn - June, 2009

When God Abandons a Nation - audio with John MacArthur - June, 2009

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA - May 31, 2009

Barko Bummer is a phony - by Bert Prelutsky - March 4, 2009

Occupy Till I Come - BILLY GRAHAM VIDEO

Billy Graham speaking in Melbourne, March 1959

5 W's of the Second Coming - BILLY GRAHAM VIDEO

Billy Graham speaking in San Jose, October 1981

...and the people remain asleep. Woe comes upon the people.

Who will remember?

• Flag Day - June 14? [no Flags seen flying]

• Independence Day - July 4?
REVOLUTION! TEA PARTY! ...plus the Official Tea Party web site + WND list of July 4th Tea Party sites, times, contacts - AFA list of July 4th Tea Party sites, times, contacts + Tea partiers counterattack 'bad guys on bad mission' - July 5, 2009 - by r.a.s.

• Constitution Day - September 17?

Gurgle forgot D-Day. A lot of people forget a lot about America. That's too bad. They forget God, too. That's hellish. America has forgotten itself. That's why we are headed to oblivion. That's why I say, "America is toast."

It's time for a vacation. I may return by Constitution Day. But, we may not have a Constitution by then, if the globalist, new world order (Satan's plan), unAmerican crowd have their way. Spell that s-o-t-o-m-a-y-o-r. Spell that "gubbermint motors." Spell that: everything God never intended for this once-upon-a-time shining-light-upon-a-hill.

Please pray about these things. Read II Chronicles 7:14. Let's all pray for forgiveness. God will not be mocked. Judgment awaits. Correction: Don’t Pray For America [Read this only if you can handle the Truth.]

Yours in Christ for America,
Ronald Goldwater

P.S.: "But as for me, I watch in hope for the Lord" - Micah 7:7

A Little Rebellion Now and Then Is a Good Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:59:00 +0000

By John W. Whitehead - The Rutherford Institute - Aug. 6, 2009

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical....It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Jan. 30, 1787)

Here's a breaking news alert for all Americans: if you take part in protest rallies, voice your discontent through picket signs, or disrupt events with yelling or intermittent shouts, then you are likely a right-wing extremist or a member of an angry mob, and you must be silenced.

At least that's the chilling message coming from the Democratic National Committee. It's the same "you're either with us or against us" attitude that George W. Bush loved to trot out. This time, however, the bone of contention is health care and it's Democrats who are trying to drown out any opposition.

Responding to the increasingly vocal protests of Americans who are concerned about the Obama administration's plans to overhaul health care, the DNC has released "Enough of the Mob," a web ad that attacks the constitutionally protected right to protest. "The Right-wing extremist Republican base is back," proclaims the ad. "Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs... This mob activity is straight from the playbook of high level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob. Call the Republican Party. Tell them you've had enough of the mob."

President Obama has taken this chilling message one step further, actually encouraging Americans to report on those who are spreading "disinformation about health insurance reform." As the White House blog states, "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov." This is the official message coming out of the White House.

Bear in mind, this is the same administration whose Department of Homeland Security not long ago issued a report defining rightwing extremists as individuals and groups "that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." That same report used the words "terrorist" and "extremist" interchangeably in describing dissenting Americans. In other words, voicing what the government would consider to be unfavorable views about its policies is tantamount to being a terrorist.

Months ago, I warned that the government would be targeting for surveillance those who disagree with the administration politically. Now we see it unfolding before our very eyes. The Obama administration is trying, none too subtly, to put down a resistance movement.

Thomas Jefferson, that revolutionary patriot who advocated rebellion every 20 years or so in order to remind the government that a spirit of resistance flourished among the people, must be turning over in his grave.

After all, the people who fomented the American Revolution did so using the same tactics as those protesting Obama's health care plan and the nation's mounting debt. They spoke out at rallies, distributed critical pamphlets, wrote scathing editorials and took to the streets in protest. They were rebelling against a government they saw as being excessive in its taxation and spending. For their efforts, they, too, were demonized and painted as an angry mob, extremists akin to terrorists, by the ruler of the day, King George III.

It's a sad statement on the political bias of many within the civil liberties arena that few outside conservative circles have spoken out against these overt attempts to quell constitutionally protected speech. Had it been George Bush attempting something similar, the outcry among liberals would have been tremendous.

So where is the outrage?

No matter what your political persuasion may be, every American has a First Amendment right to speak their mind, gather together and protest against government programs with which they disagree. And there's a lot to be concerned about. For example, the secretive nature of Obama's administration and his seeming disregard for civil liberties has some on both sides of the aisle asking what happened to the change they were promised. Congressional corruption is rampant: 17 lawmakers are currently under investigation for allegedly breaking ethical standards. Government spending is out of control: the House of Representatives actually approved nearly $200 million to buy themselves three deluxe jets. This list goes on and on.

It should be noted that much of the so-called mob's ire is being directed at lawmakers who are back home during Congress' summer recess. As one newspaper reported, "Concerns over the pace and breadth of health care reform have birthed a fiery wave of activism during the congressional recess as fearful citizens make their voices heard with resounding vigor."

Finally, Americans are taking the time to voice their concerns at town hall meetings and elsewhere, and that's as it should be.

This is democracy in action, and it's about time.

[by permission]

Read John Whitehead's other columns here.

DOWN WITH TYRANNY

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:23:00 +0000

"Let It Come!"

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - July 21, 2009

During Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, he
said the following:

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise
men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it."

Later in his historic speech Henry said, "Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

Of course, Henry ended his stirring speech with the immortal words, "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!"

(The complete text of Patrick Henry's immortal address on March 23, 1775, is found in my giant compilation of great, historic documents called THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, which may be ordered exclusively at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html)

Many people today (including the vast majority of my Christian brethren) are doing exactly what Patrick Henry said many were doing 234 years ago: they prefer to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth." Just as in 1775, many today, "having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not."

Serious students of history, however, cannot mistake the similarities between the British Crown in 1775 and the federal government in Washington, D.C., today. In fact, I would argue that federal usurpations of State sovereignty, personal liberty, and constitutional government are far more egregious today than at any time during the reign of old King George III. Were America's Founding Fathers alive today, they would have waged another war for independence years ago. Compared to the violations of liberty by the federal government in 2009, the abridgements of liberty committed by the Crown in 1775 were miniscule. We should all hang our heads in shame that we have not already exerted our right and responsibility as free people to "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security" (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2). Were we as righteous as our forebears, we would have already done so.

If we were writing a Declaration of Independence today, in which we would "let Facts be submitted to a candid world," the examples of federal abuse of power would be so multitudinous it would be difficult to contain them to a single document. The question is not, "Has the current federal government become tyrannical?" The question is, "How long will the States continue to tolerate it?"

For example, within the last couple of months, the States of Montana and Tennessee have each passed their own "Firearms Freedom Act." Briefly stated, the bills provide that any firearms or ammunition that are manufactured, sold, and kept within the State are not subject to federal law or federal regulation. Clearly, Montana and Tennessee have the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on their side.

Of course, the Constitution doesn't matter to the federal government. On July 16 of this year, BATFE Assistant Director Carson Carroll sent an "Open Letter" to all firearms dealers within the States of Tennessee and Montana, telling them in no uncertain terms, "Federal law supersedes the [Tennessee or Montana] Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."

You see folks, in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., there is no such thing as constitutional government. There is no such thing as State autonomy. There is no such thing as balance of power. To the miscreants in Washington, D.C., there is only federal authority. To them, these States United are merely colony-subjects, who must bow to an omnipotent, ubiquitous federal power that knows no limits and no boundaries.

I hope and pray that the Tennessee and Montana governors, State legislatures, and State supreme courts will tell Mr. Carroll "where to go," and will defend their State sovereignties "to the end." And by the same token, I hope and pray that dozens more states will put teeth to their State Sovereignty resolutions and follow the examples of Montana and Tennessee.

Add to the continual usurpations of State sovereignty the fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties in Washington, D.C., have allowed our once-great free enterprise system to become a giant socialist economy, and the outlook only gets bleaker. This is why Republicans in D.C. have no moral credibility in opposing President Barack Obama's Marxist-style universal health care proposals. Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party expanded socialism in America like no administration in recent history. Now they are going to oppose the Democrat version of socialism? What a joke!

The only difference between the economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., is Democrats want to tax-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Welfare State, while Republicans want to borrow-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Warfare State. Neither party wants to confine Washington, D.C., to the prescribed limits of the U.S. Constitution. And neither party in Washington, D.C., is willing to recognize the constitutional authority and autonomy of the States United.

Given the fact that both parties are hell-bent on destroying constitutional government, dismantling State sovereignty, and trampling individual liberties, it seems painfully obvious to me that a war for State independence is inevitable. Just exactly what that means is unknown at this point, but all of the elements and ingredients that existed in 1775 exist today. In fact, in view of the battle currently taking place between Nashville/Helena and Washington, D.C., the war has--for all intents and purposes--already begun. And unlike many of my Christian brethren who want to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth," I say with Patrick Henry, "Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived as
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090721.html

[by permission]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

Have you seen The Light? - video

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald Goldwater) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:31:00 +0000

In this dark, troubled world, people tremble at the prospect of greater tribulation yet to come. Many are lost, knowing not where to turn. But, there is Hope. There is the One True Light of this world, Who holds the key to life for any who kneel to Him as Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Have you seen the Light? He came long ago, and has been knocking at your door. Now, be blessed by His promise of Life, His Gift to you just for the asking, told in song by the Hunter Street Baptist Church choir, Hoover, Alabama, presented December, 2004. Click the rectangle second from right in the lower right corner of the video frame to view full screen, turn up your speakers and feel the Power of the Lord. He is The Light, and the Only Hope for this world. ...

"I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT"

courtesy: gloverm

Romans Chapter 13 Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:35:00 +0000

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - July 15, 2009

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)

As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090715.html

[by permission; emphasis added]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

PASS ID Act - S.1261

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:34:00 +0000

Text of S.1261 as Introduced in Senate

PASS ID Act

A bill to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and amend title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver's licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1261

To repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and amend title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESComments Close Comments Permalink

June 15, 2009Comments Close Comments Permalink

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsComments Close Comments Permalink

A BILLComments Close Comments Permalink

To repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and amend title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.Comments Close Comments Permalink

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Comments Close Comments Permalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009’ or the ‘PASS ID Act’.Comments Close Comments Permalink

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

Title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of Public Law 109-13) is repealed.Comments Close Comments Permalink

SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION SECURITY.

(a) In General- Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘Subtitle E--Improved Security for Driver’s Licenses and Personal Identification CardsComments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 241. DEFINITIONS.

‘In this subtitle:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) Driver’S LICENSE- The term ‘driver’s license’ means a motor vehicle operator’s license, as defined in section 30301 of title 49, United States Code.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) IDENTIFICATION CARD- The term ‘identification card’ means a personal identification card, as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) MATERIALLY COMPLIANT- A State is ‘materially compliant’ if the State has certified to the Secretary that the State has commenced issuing driver’s licenses and identification cards that are compliant with the requirements of this subtitle.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(4) OFFICIAL PURPOSE- The term ‘official purpose’ means--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) accessing Federal facilities that contain mission functions critical to homeland security, national security, or defense;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) accessing nuclear power plants; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(C) boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(5) SECRETARY- The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of Homeland Security.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(6) STATE- The term ‘State’ means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 242. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

‘(a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 1 year after the date on which final regulations are issued to implement this subtitle, pursuant to section 5 of the PASS ID Act--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is materially compliant; andComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) no person shall be denied boarding a commercial aircraft solely on the basis of failure to present a driver’s license or identification card issued pursuant to this subtitle.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) AGENCY ACCEPTANCE- Beginning 6 years after the date on which final regulations are issued to implement this subtitle, pursuant to section 5 of the PASS ID Act, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card unless the license or card complies with subsection (b).Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) STATE CERTIFICATIONS- The Secretary shall determine whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section based on certifications made by the State to the Secretary. Such certifications shall be made at such times and in such manner as the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, may prescribe by regulation.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(4) CERTIFICATION OF OTHER IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS- The Secretary may certify any driver’s license or identification card, including an Enhanced Driver’s License designated by the Secretary under section 7209 of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004, as compliant with the requirements of this subtitle if the Secretary, after review, determines such license or card meets the requirements of this subtitle.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(b) Minimum Document Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following information and features on each driver’s license and identification card issued to a person by the State:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) The person’s legal name.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) The person’s date of birth.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) The person’s gender.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(4) The person’s driver’s license or identification card number.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(5) A digital photograph of the person.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(6) The person’s address of principal residence, except--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) as provided for under section 827 of the Violence Against Women Act (Public Law 109-162); orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) for any individual who a State determines should be exempted from the requirement under this paragraph to protect the safety or security of the applicant.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(7) The person’s signature.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(8) A combination of security features designed to protect the physical integrity of the document, including the prevention of tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(9) A common machine-readable technology, containing the data elements available on the face of a driver’s license or identification card. A person’s social security number may not be included in these data elements.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(10) A unique symbol designated by the Secretary to indicate compliance with the requirements under this section.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(c) Minimum Issuance Standards-Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, for all driver’s licenses and identification cards issued under this subtitle at least 1 year after the date on which final regulations are issued to implement this subtitle, pursuant to section 5 of the PASS ID Act, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and validation of the following information before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person’s full name and date of birth.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) Documentation showing the person’s date of birth.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(C) Proof of the person’s social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(D) Documentation showing the person’s name and address of principal residence.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS-Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL STATUS- Before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, a State shall verify that the person--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(i) is a citizen or national of the United States;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(ii) has been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(iii) has been granted asylum or withholding of removal, or has been admitted into the United States as a refugee;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(iv) has been granted temporary residence in the United States;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(v) has been paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)), subject to such exceptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s unreviewable discretion, may prescribe for aliens paroled into the United States for prosecution or other categories of paroled aliens;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(vi) is a lawful nonimmigrant in the United States;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(vii) has a pending application for asylum or withholding of removal and has been granted employment authorization;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(viii) has been granted temporary protected status in the United States or has a pending application for temporary protective status and has been granted employment authorization;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(ix) has been granted deferred action status;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(x) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(xi) has otherwise been granted employment authorization in the United States; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(xii) is otherwise an alien lawfully present in the United States, as determined by the Secretary in the Secretary’s unreviewable discretion.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(C) TEMPORARY DRIVER’S LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS-Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(i) IN GENERAL- If a person presents evidence under any of clauses (iv) through (xii) of subparagraph (B), the State may only issue a temporary driver’s license or temporary identification card to the person that is valid for a time period ending not later than the expiration date of the applicant’s authorized stay in the United States or, if there is no such expiration date, for a period not to exceed 1 year. The Secretary may, in the Secretary’s unreviewable discretion, authorize the issuance of temporary driver’s licenses or temporary identification cards, for periods longer than 1 year, to employees of international organizations and to other nonimmigrant aliens who are authorized to remain in the United States for an indefinite period.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(ii) DISPLAY OF EXPIRATION DATE- A temporary driver’s license or temporary identification card issued pursuant to this subparagraph shall clearly state the date on which it expires.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(iii) RENEWAL- A temporary driver’s license or temporary identification card issued pursuant to this subparagraph may be renewed only upon verification of the applicant’s current lawful status.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) VALIDATION OF DOCUMENTS- To meet the requirements of this section, a State--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) shall not accept any foreign document, other than an official passport, to satisfy a requirement of paragraph (1) or (2); andComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) not later than 1 year after the date on which final regulations are issued to implement this subtitle, pursuant to section 5 of the PASS ID Act, shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary to routinely utilize the automated system known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements established under section 121 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-603), to verify the legal presence status of a person, other than a United States citizen or national, who is applying for a driver’s license or identification card.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(d) Other Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall adopt the following practices in the issuance of driver’s licenses and identification cards:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1)(A) Employ technology to capture digital images of identity source documents so that the images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferrable format for at least as long as the applicable driver’s license or identification card is valid; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) retain paper copies of source documents for at least as long as the applicable driver’s license or identification card is valid.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) Subject each person who submits an application for a driver’s license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) Establish an effective procedure to confirm or verify a renewing applicant’s information.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(4) Confirm with the Social Security Administration a social security account number presented by a person using the full social security account number. In the event that a social security account number is already registered to or associated with another person to which any State has issued a driver’s license or identification card, the State may use any appropriate procedures to resolve nonmatches.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(5) Establish an effective procedure to confirm that a person submitting an application for a driver’s license or identification card is terminating or has terminated any driver’s license or identification card issued pursuant to this section to such person by a State.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(6) Provide for the physical security of locations where driver’s licenses and identification cards are produced and the security of document materials and papers from which driver’s licenses and identification cards are produced.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(7) Establish appropriate administrative and physical safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected and maintained at locations at which driver’s licenses or identification documents are produced or stored, including--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) procedures to prevent the unauthorized access to, or use of, personally identifiable information;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) public notice of security and privacy policies, including the use, storage, access to, and sharing of personally identifiable information;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(C) the establishment of a process through which individuals may access, amend, and correct, as determined appropriate by the State, their own personally identifiable information.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(8) Subject all persons authorized to manufacture or produce driver’s licenses and identification cards to appropriate security clearance requirements.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(9) Establish fraudulent document recognition and document validation training programs for appropriate employees engaged in the issuance of driver’s licenses and identification cards.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(10) Limit the period of validity of all driver’s licenses and identification cards that are not temporary to a period that does not exceed 8 years.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(e) Exceptions Process-Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- States shall establish an exceptions process to reasonably accommodate persons who, for extraordinary reasons beyond their control, are unable to present the necessary documents listed in subsection (c)(1).Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENTS- Alternative documents accepted under an exceptions process established pursuant to paragraph (1) may not be used to demonstrate lawful presence under subsection (c)(2) unless such documents establish that the person is a citizen or national of the United States.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) REPORT- States shall include a report on the use of exceptions made under this subsection, which shall not include any personally identifiable information, as a component of the certification required under subsection (a)(3).Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(f) Use of Federal Systems- States shall not be required to pay fees or other costs associated with the use of the automated systems known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements and Social Security On-Line Verification, or any other Federal electronic system, in connection with the issuance of driver’s licenses or identification cards, in accordance with this subtitle.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(g) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from issuing driver’s licenses and identification cards that do not comply with the requirements of this section.Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 243. USE OF FALSE DRIVER’S LICENSE AT AIRPORTS.

‘(a) In General- The Secretary shall enter, into the appropriate aviation security screening database, appropriate information regarding any person convicted of using a false driver’s license at an airport.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(b) Definitions- In this section:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) AIRPORT- The term ‘airport’ has the meaning given such term under section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) FALSE- The term ‘false’ has the meaning given such term under section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code.Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 244. GRANTS TO STATES.

‘(a) Establishment-Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a State Driver’s License Enhancement Grant Program to award grants to assist States in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this subtitle.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS- The Secretary, through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall distribute grants awarded under this section to States that submit an application as follows:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(A) PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION- Not less than 2/3 of the amounts appropriated for grants under this section shall be allocated to each State in the ratio that--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(i) the number of driver’s licenses and identification cards issued by such State in the most recently ended calendar year; bears toComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(ii) the number of driver’s licenses and identifications cards issued by all States in the most recently ended calendar year.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) REMAINING ALLOCATION- The Secretary may allocate to States any amounts appropriated for grants under this section that are not allocated under subparagraph (A) in such manner as, in the Secretary’s discretion, will most effectively assist in achieving the goals of this subtitle.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(C) MINIMUM ALLOCATION- In allocating funds under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that for each fiscal year--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(i) except as provided under clause (ii), each State receives not less than an amount equal to 0.35 percent of the total funds appropriated for grants under this section for that fiscal year; andComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(ii) American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands each receive not less than an amount equal to 0.08 percent of the total funds appropriated for grants under this section for that fiscal year.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015, such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 245. STATE-TO-STATE ONE DRIVER, ONE LICENSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

‘(a) Establishment- The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall establish a State-to-State 1 driver, 1 license demonstration project.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(b) Purpose- The demonstration project established under this section shall include an evaluation of the feasibility of establishing an electronic system to verify that an applicant for a driver’s license or identification card issued in accordance with this subtitle does not retain a driver’s license or identification card issued in accordance with this subtitle by another State.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(c) Requirements- The demonstration project shall include a review of--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) the costs affiliated with establishing and maintaining an electronic records system;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) the security and privacy measures necessary to protect the integrity and physical security of driver’s licenses; andComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(3) the appropriate governance structure to ensure effective management of the electronic records system, including preventing the unauthorized use of information in the system, and ensuring the security and confidentiality of personally identifiable information.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(d) Savings Provision- Nothing in this section may be construed to--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) authorize the creation of a national database of driver’s license information; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) authorize States direct access to the motor vehicle database of another State.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2012 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 246. AUTHORITY.

‘(a) Participation of Secretary of Transportation and States- All authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this subtitle shall be carried out by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the States.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(b) Extensions of Deadlines- The Secretary may grant to a State an extension of time to meet the requirements of section 242(a)(1) if the State provides adequate justification for noncompliance.Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘SEC. 247. LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

‘Nothing in this subtitle may be construed to--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) affect the authorities or responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation or the States under chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2) preempt State privacy laws that are more protective of personal privacy than the requirements of this subtitle or the standards or regulations promulgated to implement this subtitle, provided that such State laws are consistent with this subtitle and the regulations prescribed pursuant to this subtitle.’.Comments Close Comments Permalink
(b) Technical Amendment- Section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 235 the following:Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘Subtitle E--Improved Security for Driver’s Licenses and Personal Identification Cards

‘Sec. 241. Definitions.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘Sec. 242. Minimum document requirements and issuance standards for Federal recognition.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘Sec. 243. Use of false driver’s license at airports.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘Sec. 244. Grants to States.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘Sec. 245. State-to-State one driver, one license demonstration project.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘Sec. 246. Authority.Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘Sec. 247. Limitation on statutory construction.’.Comments Close Comments Permalink

SEC. 4. USE OF DRIVER’S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD DATA BY PRIVATE ENTITIES.

Chapter 123 of title 18, United States Code is amended--Comments Close Comments Permalink

(1) in section 2722, by adding at the end the following:Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘(c) Copying Information From Drivers Licenses or Identification Cards- It shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly and without lawful authority--Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) to scan the information contained in the machine readable component of a driver’s license or identification card; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(2)(A) to resell, share or trade that information with any other third parties;Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(B) track the use of a driver’s license or identification card; orComments Close Comments Permalink
‘(C) store the information collected.’;Comments Close Comments Permalink
(2) in section 2724(a), by inserting ‘driver’s license, or identification card,’ after ‘motor vehicle record,’;Comments Close Comments Permalink
(3) in section 2725--Comments Close Comments Permalink
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (6), and adding ‘and’ at the end;Comments Close Comments Permalink
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7);Comments Close Comments Permalink
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3), and striking ‘and’ at the end;Comments Close Comments Permalink
(D) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (2), and striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon;Comments Close Comments Permalink
(E) by redesignating paragraph (1) as paragraph (5);Comments Close Comments Permalink
(F) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the following:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(1) ‘driver’s license’ means a motor vehicle operator’s license, as defined in section 30301 of title 49, United States Code;’; andComments Close Comments Permalink
(G) by inserting after paragraph (3), as redesignated, the following:Comments Close Comments Permalink
‘(4) ‘identification card’ means a personal identification card, as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.’.Comments Close Comments Permalink

SEC. 5. RULEMAKING.

(a) In General- Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment shall issue final regulations to implement subtitle E of title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by section 3.Comments Close Comments Permalink

(b) Content- The regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a)--Comments Close Comments Permalink

(1) shall include procedures and requirements that--Comments Close Comments Permalink

(A) protect the privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold a driver’s license or personal identification card;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(B) protect the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individuals who apply for and hold a driver’s licenses or personal identification card;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(2) shall include procedures to protect any personally identifiable information electronically transmitted;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(3) shall establish a process through which individuals may access, amend, and correct, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, their own personally identifiable information in any Federal databases used in complying with this Act;Comments Close Comments Permalink

(4) may not require a single design or numbering system to which driver’s licenses or personal identification cards issued by all States shall conform; andComments Close Comments Permalink

(5) shall only apply to driver’s licenses or identification cards issued pursuant to subtitle E of title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by section 3.Comments Close Comments Permalink

SEC. 6. SAVINGS PROVISION.

(a) Effect of Repeal- Nothing in section 2 shall affect the amendment or the repeal set forth in sections 203(a) and 206 of the REAL ID Act of 2005.Comments Close Comments Permalink

(b) Effect of Completed Administrative Actions- Completed personnel actions, agreements, grants, and contracts undertaken by an agency--Comments Close Comments Permalink

(1) shall not be affected by any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act; andComments Close Comments Permalink

(2) shall continue in effect according to their terms until amended, modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked by an officer of the United States, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.Comments Close Comments Permalink

[END. - from official sources]

Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:05:00 +0000

by Hon. Ron Paul, R-TX - July 13, 2009

Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.

The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.

The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.

Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of “independence”.

They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.

They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.

The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.

[p.d.]

Read Dr. Ron Paul's other columns here.

MURDER BY HEALTH CARE REFORM - video

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:53:00 +0000

Think U.S. health care is bad now? Wait til Washington beaurocrats become your quackery dictators; then you'll probably die from terminal socialism.

Health Care Bill Press Conference

Rep. John Shadegg, R - AZ:

Improving Health Care for All Americans

Congressman Shadegg discusses how his new health care reform bill will improve health care for all Americans. ...

This blog agrees with Congressman Shadegg. Further, this blog opposes any involvement in health care, in any manner, by the Federal Government. The two-bit scumbags in Washington, D.C., who like socialized medicine do not deserve the liberty that God and the Constitution give them. They deserve prison for their satanic sedition. Harsh? Wild language? I meant every word of it. By the way, this mess is the fault of the uninformed, civic derelict American voters, who, for their apathy, do not deserve the right to vote. America is toast. And it's YOUR fault. In case you are wondering, yes, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore! Are you? or, are you only a "sheeple?" - Robert A. Small, co-editor - July 14, 2009

Now, please, consider:

Nationalized Obama Care Commentary:

House bill would make health care a right - MSM - July 15, 2009

Good For Nothing Christians

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:00:00 +0000

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - July 10, 2009

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." (Matt. 5:13 KJV)

Jesus said that salt without savor is "good for nothing." Savor is the ingredient, the character that gives salt its quality--and its value. When salt is as it should be, it is a most precious commodity. Not only is it used as a seasoning; it is, more importantly, a preservative. As most everyone knows, salt was the primary source of food preservation before the days of refrigeration. Salt has been deemed to be so valuable at times that wars have actually been waged over it. During times of unusual deprivation, salt can be even more valuable than precious metals. But when salt loses its saltiness, it is absolutely worthless; it is "good for nothing."

Jesus plainly proclaimed that He viewed His disciples as being the salt of society. In other words, when believers have the character they should have, they provide the preservation of the land. They hold back and retard the putrefying properties of spoilage and decay. But when Christians lose their character, when they lose the internal resistance to decay, they become "good for nothing" and the result is, the land is "trodden under foot of men."

It grieves me to say that, for the most part, the modern Christian, the modern pastor, and the modern church have lost their savor. Taken as a whole, we have lost our inner character: the ability to resist decay and preserve the land has long departed, and America is fast being "trodden under foot of men."

Our churches are no longer places of respite from the world: they are mirrors of it: the same dress; the same attitudes; the same carnality; the same spirit; the same stubbornness; the same pride. Churches are no longer bastions of truth: they are glorified social clubs or mere corporations, where Christianity is never allowed to interfere with business. Instead of being watchmen on the wall, our pastors are CEOs or, even worse, politicians. Popularity and personal ambition far outweigh commitment to truth and an independent mind. And as for Christian homes, forget it. The modern American home is straight out of Isaiah chapter three: "babes shall rule over them." In the average "Christian" home, children rule the mothers, and mothers, in turn, rule the fathers. Discipline and instruction are out; leniency and ignorance are in.

We have a pandemic all right, but it's not the swine flu: it is a pandemic of spineless Christianity. Parents who cannot stand up to their own children; pastors who cannot stand up to their own congregations; religious leaders who cannot stand up to politicians; and churches that cannot stand up to unconstitutional government.

Our so-called "conservative Christian" special interest groups are far more concerned about not losing financial contributions than they are about confronting the real evils of society. And as far as the Religious Right is concerned, it lost its soul somewhere early on in the first administration of George W. Bush.

If one is looking for someone to blame America's demise on, don't look to the prostitutes, drug dealers, or crooked politicians: look no further than the doorsteps of America's churches. While the ominous clouds of oppression and tyranny boil overhead, our churches are content to play kid games and wallow in their own materialism and laziness. I realize there are exceptions to the rule, of course, but they are few and far between.

Sadder still is the lack of anything on the horizon that points to any kind of spiritual awakening. Look at the churches that are growing: for the most part, they are of the Joel Osteen and Rick Warren variety, where conviction has been replaced with compromise, and popularity has replaced principle. Genuine Bible prophets usually occupy the pulpits where hardly anyone attends. Truth has been replaced with entertainment, and calls for repentance are drowned out by the clamor for prosperity theology.

I can tell you from personal experience that, in more than 34 years of Gospel ministry, it has never been harder to continue to carry the torch of truth than it is today. It takes a toll on one's physical health and emotional being, and even on one's family. Any pastor desiring to carry the torch of truth today need not expect to have many friends. And any evangelist desiring to carry the torch of truth today need not expect to get many meetings. Truth is about as popular as a bad case of the measles, and yes, I mean among today's professing "Christians."

Should it surprise us, then, that we see the encroachment of our liberties and the erosion of constitutional government coming hard and fast? Should it surprise us that America is losing its conscience--not to mention our heritage? Should it surprise us when we see hundreds of large, empty internment camps popping up everywhere? Should it surprise us when we read of would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., trying to pass egregious legislation that would strip us of our Bill of Rights? Should it surprise us when we see multinational corporations working with foreign governments to erode the sovereignty of these United States? Should it surprise us when we see both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations look the other way while our borders are being invaded and even erased?

When the salt loses its savor, it is "cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." And that is exactly what is happening to us today.

Does all this make me fatalistic? Not at all. I am absolutely convinced that God will always reserve to Himself a faithful remnant and a land of liberty for those who desire it. But before we talk about the land, we must be sure that our hearts are willing to pay the price to obtain it. We'll leave that discussion for another time.

In the meantime, the clarion call to "come out" of this apostate, compromising, and carnal "church" is a good place to begin. We created our Black Regiment directory to help people find churches that were willing to stand up for Christ and liberty, as did colonial preachers of old. To locate Black Regiment churches and pastors in your area, or to volunteer to be a Black Regiment pastor, go to

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090710.html

[by permission]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.

Sotomayor is not an Option

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:07:00 +0000

Tough Questioning of Judge Sotomayor: An Obligation, Not An Option

The last time I read the U. S. Constitution (which was quite recently), the document still began with the words, "We, the People of the United States . . . ." If this declaration means anything, it means that the American people have a right to know — a necessity of knowing — the basic philosophical and constitutional positions of their leaders — before those leaders are chosen.

This is true even — or especially — with appointed federal judges. Reconstructionists (i.e., "activist/liberal") judges are leading the assault on America's Judeo-Christian foundations in our nation's Culture War. Indeed, these Reconstructionist federal judges (particularly U. S. Supreme Court Justices) have changed the nature of the courts, the Constitution, and the culture in this War.

This truth about the Court has been generally disputed in past judicial nomination hearings. "Judges...are not political actors," declared Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion in the Court's 2002 decision, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, (536 U.S. 765, 2002). (Ginsburg is arguably the most "political" of all of today's Justices.)

There is little reason to expect in the upcoming Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination hearings a change in the rhetoric of either the nominee or her supporters. But the Senate nomination hearings — especially the Judiciary Committee hearings — offer our best, and most appropriate, opportunity to learn the necessary information about prospective judges, including Sotomayor, and the roles they will actually play in today's real world.

Therefore, tough questioning of would-be judges is not only our option as Americans, it is our obligation. ("Tough questions" are questions about the nominee's general philosophy as it pertains to law, plus his/her legal and constitutional philosophies.) Indeed, lurking in the shadows of the "judges can't be asked the tough questions" rhetoric is one of the most basic questions of all: what happens to the right of the electorate in a republican form of government to know in advance the views of those who would lead them (especially the Supreme Court, which is now clearly a lawmaker, though clinging to the fiction that it is only a law-interpreter)? America needs, and deserves, to know if its would-be judges understand the current unconstitutional nature of the courts and are committed to the constitutionalist philosophy of returning the judiciary to the role prescribed for it by the Constitution.

The battle over judicial nominees is a white-hot front in America's Culture War — a war between the polemic Judeo-Christian and humanistic worldviews. The nominations battle is not really over people, but over principles; it is not just a fight for the Court, but for the country. Therefore, the "fictions-proclaimed-as-facts" by the "no tough questions" campaigners raise issues extending far beyond any one nomination. It is vital that we Constitutionalists understand the fictitious platitudes parroted by Reconstructionists and the facts with which to refute these fictions. Some of the main Reconstructionist arguments are dissected below.

Fiction #1: "Asking nominees tough questions 'threatens to radically politicize the judicial confirmation process and turn judges into politicians.'" Fact: Politicizing the judiciary and morphing judges into politicians is a moot issue. The federal judiciary has been politicized from its earliest days — witness the Jeffersonian impeachment effort against Federalist Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-1805. Today's Court is even more radically politicized. This truth was clearly articulated by former Cornell Law School Dean William R. Forrester. Writing in the American Bar Association Journal in 1977, Forrester declared," [the Court] can no longer be described with any accuracy as a court, in the customary sense. . . . its primary function is not judicial but legislative. . . . It has become the major societal agency for reform." Such a body is, by definition, a "political body," Justice Ginsburg's protestations notwithstanding.

The irony of the Ginsburg argument is that it is made by the Reconstructionists, who are primarily responsible for the politicization of the current judiciary and its judges. Constitutionalists are devoted to selecting judges who will reverse this judicial politicization as much as is possible.

To repeat the Fact: America's national courts are already very politicized, and one of the nation's greatest challenges is to reverse this trend. Asking judicial nominees tough questions relevant to this challenge is a major step toward de-politicizing the judiciary. The supremacy of judges must be replaced by the supremacy of the Constitution.

Fiction #2: "Asking nominees tough questions threatens the independence and impartiality of the federal courts." Fact: At least three truths render this assertion a fiction.

It is impossible to attempt to find a judge who has no views whatsoever on the fundamental constitutional and cultural issue of our nation's law. The White majority made this clear in asserting that, " . . . it is virtually impossible to find a judge who does not have preconceptions about the law."
Indeed, the very definitions of "impartiality" and "independence" are derived from one's philosophical and constitutional positions. (Does anyone really believe that Justice Ginsburg is, or was in 1993, "impartial" or "independent"?)
There are overwhelming reasons for Americans to be concerned about the independence and impartiality of those who judge them. But the danger is from today's Reconstructionist judges who have violated their oath to "support this Constitution" and have used the "impartiality /independence" argument to cloak their own fierce efforts to morph the Constitution and culture into Humanistic entities, radically different from the America which grew to greatness under a Judeo-Christian worldview.
It is undesirable to attempt to find a judge who has no views whatever on the fundamental constitutional and cultural issues of our nation's law. As the White Court majority explained, ". . . even if it were possible to select judges who do not have preconceived views on legal issues, it would hardly be desirable to do so. [This lack of views] would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias (emphasis added)."
American "law" today contains numerous definite statements of America's worldview positions, and any normally functioning adult must have developed ideas about these positions. It is therefore unthinkable that federal judges would have no such ideas.
It has not been America's practice to require judicial nominees to have no worldview (an impossibility) and/or to shield nominees from tough questioning during the conformation process. "A judge's lack of predisposition regarding the relevant legal issues in a case has never been thought a necessary component of equal justice. . . .," declared the White Court.
This Court explained further that the "traditional sense" in which the term "impartiality" is used is "the lack of bias for or against either party to the proceeding [over which a judge is presiding]." "Impartiality" in this sense is certainly a quality which America should require of its judges.

To repeat the Fact: Asking nominees tough questions does not imperil judicial impartiality or independence. To the contrary, exposing a judge's worldview to all Americans before the nominee is approved is a necessary ingredient in guaranteeing that judges will be as impartial and independent as possible.

Fiction #3: "Nominees should not be asked to 'prejudge' future cases and issues as a condition of confirmation, especially when such prejudgment involves a nominee's religious persuasion" (allegedly a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests for national government office). Fact: a judicial nominee's publicly articulating and defending his/her basic philosophical and constitutional positions (critical ingredients of his/her worldview) is not "prejudging any case or issue." Nominees can, and must, be questioned, and questioned carefully, about the law-relevant portions of their worldviews.

If it were otherwise, nomination hearings would be short indeed. As the Court itself declared in White, "[there] is almost no legal or political issue that is unlikely to come before a judge of any American Court, state or federal, of general jurisdiction." And a nominee's stating "a philosophical generalit[y]" (e.g., "I am a strict constructionist") "has little meaningful content for the electorate" and may not even be verifiable without "application to real-life issues" that the Court is likely to face.

This fact is illustrated by the issues of abortion and homosexual rights, where worldview clashes are especially visible. Cases in both these issue areas inevitably involve fundamental, non-legal questions such as the meaning of "personhood," the nature of man, the nature of marriage, and morality. Court decisions on these issues are inherently philosophical statements by the courts.

But these Court decisions are now also constitutional statements. The Court has dragged these issues into the constitutional arena with its convoluted expansion of the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (as well as other provisions) to cover abortion, homosexual rights, and other fundamental cultural issues. The Court itself is thus the one responsible for legitimizing a wide range of questions of judicial nominees which would not have even been thought of in earlier American history. Indeed, it is these very issues that have ignited many of the flames in the Culture War now engulfing America. Scrubbing from nomination hearings and public debates over judges any discussion of a judge's views about these fundamental philosophical and constitutional questions of our society is an impossibility and a vicious slap at the principle of republican government.

It is therefore also a fiction to argue that questions about such issues as abortion or homosexual rights violate the Constitution's prohibition upon religious tests for national office. These issues are not "religious" per se. They are philosophical and constitutional.

They do indeed have roots in religious values. But "to have roots in" something is not the same thing as "to be" something.

The constitutional and cultural conundrum created by fictitious arguments in judicial nomination battles must be addressed by us — "We, the people." We must insist that our Senators (who are accountable to us — yes, to us and not their party or Senate peers) ask of all judicial nominees a full and honest explanation of their basic philosophical and constitutional positions. Law-savvy Americans can provide questions to Senators (especially some apparently question-allergic GOP Senators) who do not fulfill their responsibility. We must hold the Senate, the White House, and the nominee accountable in providing us with a substantial, objective, verifiable body of data revealing a nominee's basic philosophical and constitutional positions. We must then lobby our Senators to support only clearly Constitutionalist nominees. And we must continue to hold these officials accountable for the judicial conduct of any nominee who is confirmed. It is in this context of openness, not secrecy, that the greatest degree of judicial non-politicization, independence, and impartiality can be achieved.

What ARE some of the tough questions we need to ask Judge Sotomayor and other judicial nominees? Here are a few. Affirmative reactions to the following assertions, all actually made by a court or "legal expert," reflect Reconstructionist positions. The original sources of these quotations are cited in parentheses.

[NOTE: These questions are covered in our "Constitution Blitz" and other works by Dr. Armstrong — see www.BlackstoneInstitute.org.]

QUESTIONS ON GENERAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee _____, do you agree:
- that "the word 'person' as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn"? (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 [1973])
- that "the government creates civil marriage . . . [and civil marriage] is a wholly secular institution"? (Goodridge v. Department of Public health, 798 N.E.2d 941 [2003])
- that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, . . . and of the universe"? (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 [1992])
QUESTIONS ON LEGAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee _____, do you agree:
- that "it is from the [American] people, and not God, that the state draws its powers"? (Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F.Supp. 2d 1290 [2002])
- that basing our law on Western civilization and Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards does not, but should, take account of foreign and international authorities? (Lawrence v. Texas, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 [2003], summary of majority point)
- that "The institution of rights against the government is not a gift of God, . . . [but] a complex and troublesome practice that makes the Government's job of securing the general benefit more difficult and more expensive . . . ."? (Ronald Dworkin, TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY [1977])
QUESTIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY: "Nominee ____, do you agree
- that the Constitution is to promote "the living development of constitutional justice" and be interpreted to elaborate an idea of what is "human" and "being" and to forge "a new moral order"? (Lawrence Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [2d ed. 1988]); Michael Perry, THE COURTS, THE CONSTITUTION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS [1982])
- that "[The Constitution] is made for a people of fundamentally differing views . . . ?" (Roe, supra)
- that The Constitution "reflects a set of conflicting ideals and notions . . . ." and "is an intentionally incomplete, often deliberately indeterminate structure for the participatory evolution of political ideals and governmental practices"? (Tribe, supra)

We American Constitutionalists who hold a high view of our Constitution, believing that it is, and must be, the Supreme Law of the Land must act. We are encouraged in this vital endeavor by one of America's most brilliant and articulate defenders of a limited judiciary — Justice Felix Frankfurter. Frankfurter wrote in 1941 that "Judges as persons, or courts as institutions . . . are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism [or questioning] than other persons or institutions . . . . Judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism [or questioning] expressed with candor however blunt. (italics added)" (Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 289-290).

[NOTE:This material was originally presented orally to the national Eagle Forum's annual leaders roundtable in St. Louis, Jan. 27-28, 2007. Eagle Founder and President Phyllis Schlafly urges all concerned Americans to utilize this questionnaire and distribute it as widely as possible.]

NEWS UPDATE: Eagle Forum's Court Watch is receiving a major boost in its worldwide outreach. The Library of Congress has asked for permission to archive material from the Court Watch Web site. The LOC will monitor the CW Web site in the future so that CW will have an ongoing contribution to "researchers on site at Library facilities" as well as "researchers across the world through the LOC's Web site" (quotes from LOC message). Court Watch materials will be housed in the U. S. Supreme Court collection at the Library. "Court Watch is most grateful for this extraordinary opportunity to provide top-quality education and scholarship on a broader scope than before and are excited about this opportunity," declared Dr. Virginia Armstrong, National Court Watch Chairman.

[by permission]

Sotomayor Disqualified Herself for the Supreme Court

Washington, D.C. — JULY 9, 2009 - Today, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) is sending a letter to U.S. Senators asking them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

CWALAC President Wendy Wright said, “Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Rising from a poor childhood to being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor is a testimony to the opportunities and blessings of America. But as we investigate her record, we are struck by her unwillingness to allow others to have the same opportunities as she has had. Her record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required of a judge: impartiality. She has used her position as a judge to deny equal opportunity to people based on their ethnicity. She worked with organizations that aggressively fought against basic human rights for preborn children and ethical rights to ensure women and girls are not coerced into abortion. After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. We urge senators to vote against her nomination.

“Sonia Sotomayor has disqualified herself from the U.S. Supreme Court. Her proud insistence on denying equal justice to all is antithetical to our American system. Her unwillingness to provide Constitutional reasoning for her decisions exposes her arrogance and her disrespect for our judicial system and the people whose lives are dramatically impacted by her decisions. She fails even President Obama’s controversial ‘empathy’ test of considering how her decisions ‘affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes. …’ Through her work as a judge and in organizations, she has denied people equal opportunity to make a living because of the color of their skin, preborn babies their right to live, women the right not to be exploited by abortionists, and property owners the right of their own property.

“Senators need to set aside party loyalty and do their Constitutional duty to uphold equal justice for all by opposing Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination.”

Read the letter from CWALAC to United States Senators here. [.pdf]

For Information Contact:
Demi Bardsley
(202) 488-7000, ext. 134
media.cwfa.org

[by permission]

BORN AGAIN AMERICAN - video

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:29:00 +0000

courtesy: BornAgainAmerican.org

It's Time to Join the Resistance

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:38:00 +0000

Faced with a government that is not heeding their demands, many Americans are simply giving up. But as John Whitehead reminds us in this week's vodcast, we are far from helpless, and this is not the time to surrender our rights. ...

RutherfordInstitute - March 20, 2009

Hitler's Germany = Obama's Amerika

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Small) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:58:00 +0000

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)–the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more imporant.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change.

Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

Reprint pemission: Sources: Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog, 11-13-2008, referenced from Pat Dollard's Young Americans Documentary with audio featuring "TPS," author of this essay: Part One 11/16/2008, [2 hours, with very rough language - gratuitous sewer language] Part Two 11/17/2008 [2 hours more, with more pointless, offensive gutter language. Why do these people have to talk with fecal matter and other exorcised pea soup matter regurgitating from their mouths? - ed.] - origination credit goes to dear friend, J.S., who told me about this TPS essay via email. - R.A.S.