by Timothy Baldwin

Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?

Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm. Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.

Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.

The federal government–and by current default, the states–operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head–the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.

Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.

Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.

Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?

In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do? Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.

Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!

You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?

Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism? Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!

The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Freedom for a Change

Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action–a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.

Tim Baldwin 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.  See his website.

The best show to have likely ever aired on Glenn Beck happened when Glenn Beck wasn’t there.  Of course.  Watch this great ten minutes with Judge Andrew Napolitano and two Constitutional scholars:

by Cal Thomas

Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution?

The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring that individuals would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and persistence would allow. The left has put aside the original Constitution in favor of a “living document” that they believe allows them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which to do it.

Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the 10th Amendment offers the best opportunity. The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so that it became open to broader interpretation. Robert G. Natelson, professor of constitutional law and legal history at the University of Montana, has written that even before Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme, it was changing the way the Constitution was interpreted, especially “how the commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-down, the necessary and proper clauses and incidental powers, the false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for constitutional activists, and more.”

While during the last seven decades the court has tolerated the federal welfare state, Mr. Natelson says it has never, except in wartime, “authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even ‘liberal’ justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go. … Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a ‘pretext’ for assuming an unauthorized power, ‘it would become the painful duty’ of the Court ‘to say that such an act was not the law of the land.’ “

It would be nice to know now what those boundaries are and whether Congress is exceeding its powers as it prepares to alter one-sixth of our economy and change how we access health insurance and health care.

Mr. Natelson makes a fascinating argument in his essay “Is ObamaCare Constitutional?” using the court’s Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe, he writes, the court struck down state abortion laws that “intruded into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB3200. ‘Global budgeting’ and ‘single-payer’ plans go even further and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process rules.”

Constitutional attorney John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, tells me, “Although the states surrendered many of their powers to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the states, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand, which seeks to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult to circumvent the last four words of the 10th Amendment, which state unambiguously where ultimate power lies: “or to the people.”

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their country returned to its founding principles, must exercise that power before it is taken from them. The 10th Amendment is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the left.

(Congress Will Obey the Constitution When the People Demand It)

by Paul Galvin

Next year the country will go through another census. The people and the states – the creators and on-going sustainers of the federal government – have authorized this undertaking (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2). The census should be seen not as a burden but rather as an opportunity for Americans to practice self-government. Let me explain.

Our written Constitution embodies ideas to which every member of Congress has taken an Article VI oath to support. In taking their constitutional oath the members of Congress are joined by every member of the 50 state legislatures, every federal executive, legislative, judicial officer, and every executive, legislative, judicial officer of the 50 states, as well as all military personnel. That so many are required to take the oath “to support this Constitution” is ample evidence that the Framers thought their written document to be quite important, a belief shared by most Americans.

Our Constitution is written in clear, understandable English. Consider the census provision. “The [first] actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States [March, 1789], and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct.” This allows Congress to count us, but only count us. The operative word, “Enumeration.”

How then can we help Congress? By giving census officials your name and address, thereby counting you, but nothing more. By doing this simple task, you assist Congress and census officials fulfill their oath-taken duties “to support thisConstitution.”

We have agreed to be counted but the license ends there. With our consent Congress is authorized to count us for one purpose: to apportion among the states, as a function of population, the number of House representatives who will then speak for / represent the people on federal matters. That’s it. As to senators, the representatives for the states, no apportionment/enumeration scheme is necessary because no variable is involved: each state is entitled to two senators regardless of demographic or geographical size (“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State”). These provisions are the result of the delegates’ debates on representation and their final agreement, often referenced as the Great (or Sherman’s) Compromise.

Readers will note that the Constitution simply authorizes an enumeration, a counting of heads. Not an enumeration by race, Hispanic ethnicity, personal relationships, or by the manner in which a person occupies his/her home (“tenure” in census-speak). Not an enumeration by one’s labor force status, by health insurance coverage, by disability status, by level of education. Not an enumeration of the number of bedrooms, kitchens, cars, distances/times traveled to work, school. Not an enumeration of the amount of income made, or by the answers to numerous other nosy questions found in the American Community Survey. Just a simple counting of the number of people. Madison’s extensive notes on the 1787 Convention contain not one word about the delegates spending any of their valuable time discussing the issues of race, Hispanic origins, personal relationships, or plumbing.

We can thus practice self-government by just giving name & address. Under our constitutional republican form of government the people are sovereign. We govern ourselves best by following our consensually-adopted Constitution, and demanding that Congress and all federal officials do similarly. LewRockwell.com readers understand that the federal government does not exist unto itself; that is, it is not a self-existing, perpetual entity. Its creation and its continued existence are subject entirely to the will of the two principals, the people themselves and the states, which allow it to remain in being.

“But,” the statists will sputter, “the Constitution says that this counting may be done ‘in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct,’ and that allows us to get further information from and about you.” This language merely goes to the mechanics of the counting (who will do it; when it is to be done; how, when results are to be reported; and so forth); it does not enlarge what may be counted. Constitutionally the only permitted enumeration is the number of people in the United States. Why? Because that count is the determinant for apportionment and therefore the onlypertinent information needed. Not race, not ethnicity, not personal relationships, not housing tenure. The minimum information requested for the 1790 census – the number of persons in each household and the “Names of heads of families” (Public Law, March 1, 1790) – provided Congress with the necessary data to accomplish Congress’s first re-apportionment. Addresses and the names of other household occupants were not sought. This historical perspective is significant: the first census established precedent; was nearest to the date of the Constitution’s ratification; and is in straight alignment with the Framers’ purpose and plan. Regardless of which form you receive in the mail (your address is already known), the 10-question short form or the longer American Community Survey form, any busybody question beyond name and address has no bearing for apportionment. The ACS, sent out to different addresses on a monthly basis (even though the Constitution expressly authorizes only a single decennial census), is extraordinarily intrusive.

“But,” the statists will stammer further, “Congress says you must give all this other information.” Perhaps Congress has enacted something along those lines, but that is not to say that that law is itself lawful. As noted, we agreed to be counted, but that’s all. If the original grant of authority from the authors of the Constitution (the people and the states) does not allow or authorize Congress to enact such a law, then that so-called law is not law within the meaning of the Constitution because that purported enactment was not authorized in the first place. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI) states that purported federal law is considered authorized law only when made within the framework of the written Constitution (“ThisConstitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; . . .”). Nowhere in this Constitution (a document of limitations) is there found any authority from us enabling Congress to ask about race, ethnicity, or household utility bills. “But, but, . . ., the necessary and proper clause encompasses these further census questions.” Not so. The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, section is not an independent grant of power standing on its own. It is at most a derivative power; before that clause may be used as justification for a federal law, primary authority must first be located elsewhere. As far as the census is concerned authority is found solely in the Article I provision noted above, and in that provision Congress is only allowed to count/enumerate us.(*) Nothing further; demanding the disclosure of race or Hispanic ethnicity or other information is not enumeration.

[(*) So that the forest doesn’t get lost among the trees: The authorization for the decennial counting of the American people is found in the article defining how the House of Representatives is to be composed. The provision is about those representatives, not about the people themselves. Only statist-minded controllers would take a provision defining the House of Representatives and turn it into an opportunity to conduct third-degree inquisitions of the country’s sovereigns, the people themselves.]

Using tired excuses we will be told that government needs this information to function. Really? The Framers didn’t think so; otherwise they would have placed that authority in the document. Further, if Congress believes itself in need of additional information about us, let Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution and pitch its case to the creators of the federal government – the people and the states – as to why further, intrusive personal information is needed in order to apportion House representation. The Framers were forward thinkers; they anticipated that the needs of the created government might change, providing to this end an amendment process (Article V).

“But, but, . . .,” the statists will whine, “amending the Constitution is such a burdensome process. It’s so much easier for us to get this information by threatening citizens with fines and demanding it.” To which we simply reply, “We the people expected that you read, understood, and agreed with the written Constitution before you voluntarily took your oath of office to support the people’s document. Did you cross your fingers? Is it your intention not to honor your constitutional oath?”

Name, address and number of occupants. The only information to be given in response to any letter or satchel-toting census bureaucrat demanding “Your information, please.” We live more freely when all public officials obey the law. Let’s begin with the Constitution.

Oathkeepers.org

A Three Percent Oath Keeper in Iraq

The above photo was submitted by an active duty Oath Keeper in Mosul Iraq, sporting an Oath Keepers tab.   As his other tab and patch make clear, he is also a “Three Percenter.”  (see below)

The photo was also posted over at the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog with this message:

Just thought the WRSA [Western Rifle Shooters Association] and the Sipsey Street boys might like to see what we are wearing while over here in Iraq.  We . . . know what the deal is, and when the time comes (which it will), we know where we stand and continue to make preparations for it.

Keep up the good work!

Regards from Mosul,
K7C

All I can say to that is Hooah!  Thank you for your service, K7C, and for stepping up.  Give our best regards to your brothers in arms, and let them know we have your six back home.  If any of you need anything at all, from socks to helmets, to body armor, just ask and it will be provided.   We need you to stay safe and come home healthy.

Oath Keepers here stateside, let your brothers on active duty in Iraq know how you feel.  They do come here to read comments, count on that.

Note that the tab in the photo is not the same tab we sell here on our site (which is more of a police style tab).  We are having military ACU style tabs with velcro made up, but they are not yet finished.  That means the troops are having their own Oath Keeper tabs made up!  And no, we did not put them up to it.   They are doing this on their own initiative.

So take heart!  The message of the oath and its obligations is spreading, and the Guardians of the Republic are listening and responding.   And every time you act to spread the message, by whatever means, you cannot know what impact you will have, or how far it will reach.  That’s why it’s so crucial that we each do what we can to reach, teach, and inspire as many active duty as possible about their obligation to defend the Constitution and their duty to refuse unlawful orders that would violate the rights of their fellow Americans.

Upcoming Outreach Effort to Put Tabs, DVD’s, and OK Handbooks in the Hands of Active Duty

Coincidentally, the tabs those troops are wearing are almost exactly like the tabs we are having made for our upcoming care package initiative, which will put an Oath Keeper tab, DVD, Oath Keepers handbook, copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and other outreach materials, into the hands of active duty deployed worldwide.  We plan on launching that effort on Veteran’s Day, November 11 and continuing right on through Bill of Rights Day, December 15, with the goal of delivering all the care packages by Christmas.  Now imagine what that will be like!  Tens of thousands of our troops reached with the message and a tab.  I will post more details very soon.

What’s a Three Percenter?

Now, seeing the other tab and patch in the photo, you may ask “what is a three percenter?”  The narrowest definition is that three percenters are hard-line gun owners who are done backing up and will not comply with more infringements of their right to bear arms.   A broader definition would be that they are hard-line Americans who are done backing up and will not comply with further  infringement of any of their rights.  It also alludes to the three percent of the colonists who took to the field against the King during the Revolution, and the estimation that at least three percent of modern Americans will actively fight, if it comes to it, to preserve liberty.  Read this essay for more explanation.

Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are separate groups, but it is not a surprise to see people who consider themselves both an Oath Keeper and a Three Percenter. If you read the supplied links you will see why.

While we Oath Keepers have a specialized mission of outreach to current serving, focused on the oath and on refusing to obey unlawful orders, there’s lots of common ground and shared commitment to the Republic among both groups.   Go here to read what the Sipsey Street blog has to say about that.

Oath Keepers, expect to see more of these tabs popping up soon, even before we begin our care package initiative.  You are making a real difference.   Keep up the good work!

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes