Today, we are governed by another ruling class who, at best, gives lip service to the Creator and, at worst, wants Him banned from public discourse, lest their humanistic lies be exposed. They are the ones who determine who is favored and who is shunned. They decide who deserves the good will of the state and who requires observation.

Here is where we run into the idea of the “protected class” of citizens. These are people who don’t always have an easy time of life. It could be that they have some physical situation, or some lifestyle choice situation that is different than most. However, the common denominator is that the Democrat Party has managed to create a dependency on government in these citizens and, pretty well, takes them for granted at the polling place… sometimes multiple times in a cycle. Foolishly, the other party bought into the compassionate sounding names they gave the laws and embraced them as well.

This is not to say we should ignore our neighbors with physical disabilities. On the contrary, we need to look out for the welfare of our neighbors as we do our own families. However, to make such consideration a mandate from the government opens the door to all sorts of graft, corruption and cronyism.

Consider for a moment the outrageously priced child safety seat for cars. They are a great product and my grandchildren all had them. My kids had this flimsy little thing that hung on the back of the front seat. It would have been useless in a crash. However the mandate did not come until someone had a product they want to sell and the connections to have a law passed. Viola! An instant market of millions of new parents. I want to make clear that just because something is a law does not mean it’s a bad idea – just that we need to be aware of the whole story.

Now consider the whole new industry centered around “compliance”. It encompasses the fastest growing segment of the software industry all the way down to companies that pedal properly worded posters instructing employees how to behave so as not to offend one or more of the ruling party’s constituencies. Those with connections are making multiple millions because of these government regulations, while the rest of us are boxed in more tightly every day by people with no natural authority telling us “you must say this” or “you can’t say that”.

Some of the problems addressed actually had some basis in reality. Sometimes we Americans can behave boorishly, not thinking about the people around us. Yes, even Christians do the same thing. It may not be as overt at times, but we, too, can get caught up in our own concerns and forget the people around us. We are told that true religion is to look out for the least among us, so we are, in deed, our brothers keeper.

It is because we, as a group, have failed to be the salt and light in society, taking care of those in need that we opened the door for opportunists to come in and replace true compassion with the mercantile approach of trading favor for votes. Some of our own number, who claim the name of Christ, have fallen into the trap of attempting to meet their neighbors needs through a political organization that is essentially godless and corrupt.

We cannot escape the blame for allowing this to happen. We have been too wrapped up in our own concerns. These concerns could even include our own church activities. We have not been seeing the needs around us. Not seeing, we have not been responding… and the enemy has moved in with a false solution that takes away freedom and destroys souls.

What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.

Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .” (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!

In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.

Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Policy Analysis Center, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key, Maryland Del. Don Dwyer, Washington Rep. Matt Shea, Wyoming Sen. Kit Jennings, as well as Candidate for Governor of Montana, Bob Fanning, and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Montana, Chuck Baldwin.

Attorneys filing this brief before the US Supreme Court are Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan (of the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia) and Gary G. Kreep (of the U.S. Justice Foundation).

As citizens of the State of Montana, and as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana, Bob Fanning and I are outraged at this unconstitutional manipulation of the 2010 US Census, and the subsequent unconstitutional and unlawful misapportionment of the US House of Representatives.

We are further outraged that our own governor, Brian Schweitzer (the incumbent Democrat governor who is term-limited out of office after the completion of his current term) has done nothing to prevent the people of the State of Montana from being denied the rightful seating of an additional US House member from the Montana delegation to Washington, D.C. He has not served as Montana’s watchman, to make certain that our State is being treated fairly by the Obama administration. Louisiana has been forced to go it alone, as the only State willing to bring this challenge. By not joining the lawsuit against the Obama administration, what Governor Schweitzer in essence is doing is allowing illegal aliens to deny the due representation of the citizens of Montana in Washington, D.C. This is an outrage!

It is a gross misinterpretation of the US Constitution to claim that the US Census is supposed to “count everyone living in this country.” Article. I. Section. I. Clause 3. as amended by Section. 2. of the 14th Amendment authorizes “a targeted decennial census of the ‘respective numbers’ of ‘the People’ of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found ‘living’ in the United States.” The term “the People” is a technical term used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to the polity, that is, the people who constituted the government and who are legal citizens of the nation. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally-authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required–the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are ‘chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ (Article. I. Section. 2. Clause. 1. US Constitution). The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of ‘the People’ of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.”

In the afore-mentioned lawsuit, we are asking the US Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

I can tell you that the people who want to disassemble constitutional government in this country are hoping that no one notices what the Obama administration is doing to manipulate the 2010 US Census to unlawfully reconstruct the US House of Representatives and Electoral College. Well, I can tell you, Bob Fanning and I (along with the other amici curiae supporting Louisiana in this lawsuit) are not going to let that happen!

I will be holding a press conference to blow the whistle on what is taking place to deny the people of the State of Montana (along with the people of the states of Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) their lawful representation in Washington, D.C. I am also using the influence and outreach of this column to alert the American people as to how the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

It is more than interesting also that the “anointed” establishment neocon Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate, Rick Hill, has, himself, not even bothered to alert the people of Montana to this travesty. Why not? Rick is a career politician who once served in the US House of Representatives from Montana. One would think he would want to protect the people of the State of Montana from this outrage. But he has said nothing! Plus, have you heard anything about this from any of the “conservative” talking heads on FOX News? No you haven’t! Why not? Why is it left to this column to alert you to this gross violation of constitutional government?

Therefore, I unashamedly appeal to readers to help Bob and I carry this fight to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representative and the Electoral College to the US Supreme Court. Please go to our web site.

I also highly encourage readers to visit the web site of the law firm filing this brief. William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, et al., have been at the front lines in helping to defend constitutional government for longer than many of us have been alive. Bill Olson and Herb Titus have defended a sizeable number of patriot organizations and individuals against federal usurpation for decades. I don’t know of another law firm with the credentials and track record of fighting for constitutional government, Second Amendment rights, and individual liberty anywhere in the country than the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.

To learn more about this lawsuit and the Olson law firm…

In the meantime, each of us should be using our individual and collective sphere of influence to trumpet this attempted travesty as loudly as possible! I especially encourage readers in the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio to demand of every elected public office holder in their respective states to use every means possible to defend the lawful rights of their states to proper representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The people of America simply must not allow this flagrant manipulation of the 2010 US Census to take place! If the Obama administration gets by with this now, think how the states’ representation in Congress will be abused in the future.

For more by Chuck Baldwin go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

Washington DC – The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that under the First Amendment churches are entitled to a “ministerial exception” and thus dismissed a wrongful termination suit against the church. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Court recognizes that the ministerial exception applies beyond the head of a religious congregation to others, such as the teacher in this case, who are viewed as ministers or those carrying the message of the Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts stated that, “By requiring the Church to accept a minister it did not want, such an order would have plainly violated the Church’s freedom under the Religion Clauses to select its own ministers.” He also states that to award compensation such as back pay “would operate as a penalty on the Church for terminating an unwanted minister, and would be no less prohibited by the First Amendment than an order overturning the termination.”

This ruling is clear to completely protect the church. It states “The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful – a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical,’ is the church’s alone.” The Court rejected the government’s extreme argument that there should be no such ministerial exception, stating: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “This decision is a landmark ruling by the High Court that recognizes the strong protections of the First Amendment Religion Clause with regards to church autonomy. Churches have the right to decide who to employ to communicate their religious message. The government’s extreme view that churches have no right to control who will communicate their message would allow the government to control churches. It makes no sense to tie the hands of a church when the messenger is undermining the message. The Supreme Court rightly rejected the government’s extreme secular argument.”

Responsibility & Effectiveness of Government

The care of human life and happiness, not their destruction, is the legitimate responsibility of a good government.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government

Right to Bare Arms

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Banks

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Courts

One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.

Press

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

Liberty

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Prosperity

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Religion

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.

When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t.” See this report.

Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!

At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.

This is Tim’s column explaining the NDAA:

And this is Tim’s column, which rebukes journalists who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the NDAA:

Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history–the Bill of Rights–has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

“In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

“This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!’”

Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own.

Adams goes on to say, “Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’

“Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’s momentary intentions on how he ‘wishes’ to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.”

See Adams report.

Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes–and with very few exceptions–both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.

We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized–along with the Declaration of Independence–as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights.

So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry? How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared? What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws?

Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that!

I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.

For more from Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/

Davis was not some radical psycho as many think of him today. He was a graduate of West Point. He was a United States Senator. He believed in the constitution, but, based on his observation, he had little confidence in the willingness of the industrialized, more internationalist northern states would respect it if it came in conflict with their plans and interests. In his own words:

“My devotion to the Union of our fathers had been so often and so publicly declared; I had on the floor of the Senate so defiantly challenged any question of my fidelity to it; my services, civil and military, had now extended through so long a period and were so generally known, that I felt quite assured that no whisperings of envy or ill-will could lead the people of Mississippi to believe that I had dishonored their trust by using the power they had conferred on me to destroy the government to which I was accredited. Then, as afterward, I regarded the separation of the States as a great, though not the greater evil.”

As late as February if 1860 he was working on legislation that would strengthen the union while providing for the ability of the individual states to provide for their own affairs. This was not well received, and when his home state of Mississippi decided to withdraw from the union, he believed it was his duty to do his part to help the effort to succeed.

Davis greatly admired George Washington and, in many ways, saw himself in a similar situation… fighting to free his people from an oppressive and overreaching national government. He believed that General Washington would side with the rebels in their quest to be free of federal control. This belief is open to discussion, but a portrait and bust of our first president were displayed in prominent positions in his home. This was, to him, the second American Revolution.

It is a humbling experience to stand in the room where southern leaders like Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Stonewall Jackson met with President Davis to plan the defense of their land. They were godly men, pursuing a course they believed to be best for the people and their country. I’m certain their prayers went up to heaven on behalf of their cause. It was not to be and the answer was “No”.

Two of the three visitors lost their lives fighting for a cause the believed in… a lost cause. Lee, when seeing the end was near, did everything he could to minimize the loss of the men in his command, including giving up the dream of the Confederate States. These men were dedicated and capable – perhaps more capable than the leaders they met on the battlefield.

The did not succeed, but they spent themselves following the dream of freedom as they saw it. Today, even in defeat, they are admired by those who understand them. In Virginia, their names are found on all sorts of roads and other public facilities. It was not for the cause of slavery that they fought. Most of the men they led were simple farm boys, not wealthy plantation owners. Their land was invaded and they were doing their best to send the intrudes back home. They were major players in the tragedy we call the War Between the States, or Civil War.

None of them wanted to take up arms against their fellow countrymen, yet they did what they believed they had to do. Perhaps it was not the right choice, but perhaps there are times a person has to stand up and fight for something, even if there is no chance of victory. If we only undertake struggles when we know we can win, there is little virtue in us. Yet, if we join the battle when the outcome is uncertain, simply because it is the right thing to do, though it costs us everything, we are closer to being the person we were created to be – not just someone existing in a shadow land.

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”

Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, founded upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.

America’s forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part:

“In the name of God, Amen. … Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

The sentiments and statements of America’s founders make it clear that this nation has enjoyed a love and appreciation for the rights and freedoms recognized in Natural Law that is unique in the annals of human history. No other people have such a heritage.

One thing America’s founders could not envision was–after they had paid so terrible a price to purchase our liberties–that the time would come when their posterity would be denied the basic freedoms to publicly express their reverence for God. Never could they have imagined that the day would come when citizens of the sovereign states (each with a State constitution protecting religious liberty) would be denied their right to pray in school, or place Nativity scenes on public property, or hang copies of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls.

I am also confident that America’s founders would be completely repulsed by the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism, and globalism. At the national level, Democrats and Republicans alike have created a central government so large that it would be unrecognizable to any Founding Father (even Alexander Hamilton or John Adams). In addition, both Big Business and Big Religion have sold our great country down the old proverbial river. Truly, our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Therefore, at this Christmas season, let us remember well the founding principles of these United States of America. Furthermore, let us renew with vigor the fight for freedom before our liberties and our heritage are gone altogether.

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas!

P.S. Many readers of this column also watch our live stream broadcast from Liberty Fellowship each Sunday afternoon at 2:30pm (Mountain Time). Since this Sunday is Christmas Day, Liberty Fellowship will conduct its service on Christmas Eve, Saturday, December 24, at 5pm (Mountain Time). And, yes, this service will be broadcast live. I invite readers to join us as we celebrate Christ’s birth this Saturday, December 24, at 5pm (Mountain Time). To view our live stream broadcast, click here.

For more by Chuck Baldwin, click here.

For the most part, the sentiments of our founders ring hollow to modern Americans who, ever since World War II, have glorified, idolized, and practically even worshipped the standing US military. But of course, with only isolated instances (which were almost always completely covered up by the mainstream news media) of the abuse of military power being committed against US citizens, the American people, as a whole, have no point of reference directing them to the sagacity of America’s founders on the subject. Indeed, who could even imagine that US military forces would ever be used against the US citizenry? After all, the media did a masterful job of covering up the most flagrant example of US military forces being used against US citizens when US military forces assisted federal law enforcement agencies in slaughtering the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993. So, most Americans simply shut their eyes against that “painful truth” and chose to ignore the fact that it even happened.

Yes, there have been isolated instances of military personnel abusing their authority against American citizens (i.e., Waco in 1993, Kent State University in 1970), but overall the founders’ deep-seated distrust of standing armies has been replaced with deep-seated trust. But were our founders right to be distrusting of standing armies? And are we wrong to be so trusting of standing armies? Consider the following report by Dr. Andrew Bosworth.

“There is a shocking piece of legislation working its way through Congress. A Defense Authorization bill for 2012 allows for military detentions of American citizens on American soil. These can be indefinite detentions, with no trial.”

Bosworth quotes an ACLU (an organization whose efforts regarding the so-called “separation of church and state” issues I strongly oppose, but whose efforts regarding issues that can only be identified as an emerging police state I strongly support) statement as saying, “The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people–including Americans living in the United States itself–indefinitely and without charge.

“The Defense Authorization bill–a “must-pass” piece of legislation–is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President–and all future presidents–the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.”

Especially egregious are sections 1031 and 1032. They:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

Bosworth also notes that, “The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.”

Bosworth goes on to say, “Even mainstream, apolitical Americans would be concerned about such a provision that, on its face, is unconstitutional. Ordinary Americans are already waking up to the specter of tyranny, and the NDAA for 2012 would accelerate that process.”

Near the conclusion of Bosworth’s report, he states, “As many Americans know, for over a decade there have been dozens of pieces of legislation and executive orders that have chipped away at the US Constitution, specifically at its Bill of Rights.

“The ‘war on terror’ was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.”

See Bosworth’s report.

I well remember when my friend LT CDR Ernest “Guy” Cunningham conducted his “Combat Arms Survey” to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC’s Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, back on May 10, 1994. A couple of questions in this survey were especially revealing (and startling). John McManus picks up the story at this point: “One of the questions asked the Marines if they would be willing to be assigned to a ‘national emergency police force’ within the U.S. under U.S. command. The survey showed that 6.0 percent strongly disagreed, 6.3 percent disagreed, 42.3 percent agreed, 43.0 percent strongly agreed, and 2.3 percent had no opinion.”

Commenting on these results, Cunningham said, “Do you realize that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?” Remember, these were active duty Marines back in 1994.

Responses to another question were even more startling. Cunningham’s question: “Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.” The result: “42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion.” This equates to approximately 61% of Marines saying they would defy orders to turn their weapons on US citizens in order to disarm them; 26% saying they would not disobey such orders; and 12% refusing to say one way or the other, which means you could probably add them to the 26% who would not disobey orders to turn their weapons on American citizens.

See McManus’ report.

Not too long ago, I asked a retired US Army Major General what he thought the results would be today if CDR Cunningham gave that same survey to US Marines? He said he thought that the number of those refusing such orders would be much higher and the number of those complying with such orders would be much lower. Given the Levin/McCain bill currently working its way through the US Congress, I sure hope he’s right! And I also hope that we modern Americans were not wrong to discard our founders’ distrust of standing armies.

For more by Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

Having just thrown off the bondage of a despotic monarch and a state church, the good Baptists from Connecticut were concerned that the new state would impose its’ religious dictates on the citizens as had the old one. Instead of merely reading about the letter, let’s have a look at the context and see what Jefferson really said – not what the progressives would like us to believe he said.

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

In our up tight, politically correct culture, it is also a revelation to see something else Jefferson said in this letter… “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”. He understood that motivation of a criminal act was beyond the scope of government to control. He understood that it was wrong for a man to beat the living daylights out of his neighbor. He did not care about the source of the malice involved in the act. He understood that it was the job of the government to insure the peace and safety of its’ citizens, not uniformity of thought.

He also knew that one reason for hurting one’s neighbor was just as bad as another. Even though he founded the institution, Jefferson knew that it was no less acceptable for a man to harm his neighbor because he was a Virginia Tech fan instead of a University of Virginia fan, than if the victim were beaten because he like to do strange things with other men. Both acts were wrong.

In this letter, we saw the idealism as well as, perhaps, the naivete of our third President. He did not foresee that politicians and academics, eager to make political gains would embrace an inaccurate understanding of one concept and totally ignore others that did not fit their agenda.

This is one more case where we simply cannot depend on the information given to us… by the media, by academics, or by politicians. We need to go out and find the truth for ourselves. We just cannot be surprised that to a progressive, telling the truth may well be a hate crime.

From the viewpoint of Legal History…

The time may be ripe being that Chief Justice Roberts clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, and this Rehnquist DISSENT in Bigelow v. Virginia case (heard 18 December a.d. 1974, decision 15 June a.d. 1975) involves the state protecting its Citizens from adverse health “services” available in another state. Rehnquist wrote:

The result is the fashioning of a doctrine which appears designed to obtain reversal of this judgment,

Remember that in the movie “Amazing Grace” after years of failure at the “direct approach” of outlawing Slavery in the British Empire, as suggested by a young man NOT involved in the years of unsuccessful legislative efforts, Wilberforce obtained an inroad against Slave Traders by a “flanking attack”, passing a law that Slave Ships had to meed certain health and safety requirements.

After a warning or two, the British Navy could seize the slave ship, which the Navy did, and that put a huge hole in the profitability of the Slave Trade. That then led to the banning of Slavery, after the Slave Traders income was reduced by legislative attack.

The Bigelow decision addresses tangentially the “profitability” and the commercial aspects of Aborticide services. There may be a connection with the issue of “Federally Mandated Health Care” (Obama’Scare, a scary program as contrasted with the more main stream media label of “Obama Care”), originating in another state, or directed from DC, and indeed, even the very premise of the 14th Amendment extension of Roe and Doe to overrule State laws outlawing Aborticide services. Read Rehnquist’s short DISSENT (below) to understand there was a VERY slim legal logic or legal history for the majority opinion in Bigelow v. Virginia.

Given the “evolving standards” of banning advertisement in the Tobacco Settlements of the 1990s, provided now are additional reasons for this issue being “ripe” for plucking by a well designed action plan and well crafted legal argument.

Reading the opinion and the dissent, but NOT the transcripts of the Virginia Attorney Generals assistant before the U.S. supreme Court, there are sad indicators of a weak and poorly crafted argument.

There seemed to be “confusion” as what position that Virginia would assert because of the Roe and Doe decisions that the U.S. supreme Court had recently issued.

The Transcripts of the Oral Arguments would affirm or refute that “reading between the line” discernment.

Now is the time to plan a careful strategy, and craft a well-reasoned and thorough legal argument by the Virginia Attorney General, with others, to “reverse Bigelow v. Virginia” as Rehnquist suggested was possible in his Dissent of 36 years ago.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their countrymen, even those still in the womb… Heroic in American History are the “Abolitionists” for “Abolishing Slavery”, so to the Abolishing of the Mental Slavery of Killing a Child in the womb.

Yes, while the Children of Israel were 40 years in the wilderness, after 38 years (2011-1973) in the “Wilderness of Roe and Doe and Bigelow”, now is the time for a Rallying Cry of “Abolish Abortion” – For Equal Justice for All (born and unborn).