Sunday, March 22, 2009

It starts with you...

Would you be a peer or a helot?

This from, where Chuck Baldwin chimes in about being lumped in with terrorists and, even worse...militia members (!), by the Missouri Information Analysis Center.

Chuck put it succinctly in a couple of places:

"In the first place, Washington, D.C., is a lost cause. It really is. We have about as much chance of flying to the moon in a glider as we do of seeing any significant change in Washington, D.C. Neither the Republican nor Democrat parties at the national level offer any hope. The federal government is hell-bent on turning the United States into a socialistic global village, and the two major parties are in it up to their necks."

Well said, Chuck!

And later he adds:

Folks, Washington, D.C., is a pigsty. There is no remedy for that place. It doesn't matter to a tinker's dam whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House, or even which party controls Congress. If the last two Presidential administrations have not taught us that, we are brain-dead."

He closes with:

If there is any hope for lovers of freedom in this country, it will be found in individual States that are willing to shake off the filthy dust that has floated down from that putrid landfill on the banks of the Potomac, and stand up for freedom and independence the way Americans used to. And if the State we live in won't do it, we might want to consider moving to one that will, because if we lose our liberties, it will be our own individual State that will have run up the white flag."

I have been saying this for some time.
People, you need to get it through your Public School educated heads, the States are NOT political subdivisions of the federal government. The federal government is a creation of the people of the States. It is a corporate entity which has certain delegated authority. Which authority may be withdrawn at any time by the people of those same States.

If the remedy cannot be found in congress assembled, it can be administered through a constitutional convention, which can be called by three fourths of the state legislatures. Those same legislatures can send any set of delegates they desire to the convention. While the convention is meeting, the U.S. Congress can still sit and conduct its business. The result of the convention would be binding only on those states that ratify it, presuming three fourths concur. If a new Union is the result, the remnant United States can continue their business under the former Constitution, or follow whatever path they choose. This is THE legal and lawful means of extricating the country from the tar-pit of totalitarian socialism in which we are now mired. Mired but not sunk. We are well on our way, but not yet delivered. Folks it starts with you.

But...but, butbutbut......What about my social security...and my momma's medicare....and next weeks food stamps...and...and...and

Are you a free man or a serf ? Would you be a Spartan and a Peer, or a helot?

It starts with you.


Bill Walker said...

A couple of corrections to the author's statements. An Article V Convention is called by Congress when two-thirds of the states apply for it. He is correct regarding ratification; no proposed amendment submitted by a convention (or Congress for that matter) becomes part of this Constitution unless it is ratified by the three fourths vote of the states.

The author believes an Article V Convention could create a new constitution. This is incorrect. Article V states twice that any amendment is "part of this Constitution" meaning the original document remains.

Sufficient applications exist to cause a convention call. All 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution requires they submit 34 applications in order to cause a convention call.

Finally Mr. Baldwin is discussing secession from the Union. Under the terms of federal law, that public stance is a criminal violation. That is why his position was mentioned in the Missouri report. It's against federal criminal law to urge the overthrow of the constitutional form of government.

Bill Walker said...

Forgot one piece of information. You can read the applications at

Longbow said...

First, I stand corrected at two thirds.

Second, The people of the states can, in a constitutional convention, modify the current constitution or write a new one. The people of the states created it and they can alter or abolish it through the same means.

Mr. Baldwin has not advocated secession, as far as I can tell. He has however strongly suggested that the states assert their sovereignty.

Third, please inform me of a federal law which is violated by advocating state sovereignty.

Mike H said...

'It's against federal criminal law to urge the overthrow of the constitutional form of government.'

What about altering or abolishing this form of government (from the Declaration)?

Personally, I advocate Restoring our Constitutional Republic, of which elements of the federal government seem to be in violation.