“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

See Foster’s report.

Ever since Congress passed the Patriot Act back in 2001, it seems the floodgates have been opened for more and more intrusions and abridgements of those fundamental liberties expressly protected in the Bill of Rights. From the Patriot Act, to the Military Commissions Act, to the NDAA (Indefinite Detention Act), and to now the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), these big government toadies in Washington, D.C., are clearly and unmistakingly declaring war on the American people.

I invite readers to see my column on the NDAA.

Have we forgotten the MIAC report out of the State of Missouri back in 2009? In that official State report, supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin were identified as potential dangerous “militia members,” and Missouri State law enforcement officials were notified to be on guard. Beyond that, anyone that identified themselves as being pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Federal Reserve, Christians who believe in the return of Christ, and even returning Iraq War veterans were likewise targeted as potentially dangerous to Missouri State law enforcement personnel.

After the MIAC report surfaced, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I sent a letter to the governor of Missouri demanding that the report be removed and that the State of Missouri repudiate the report. After a firestorm of outrage by thousands of Americans all over the country (not just in Missouri) the State of Missouri did indeed remove and repudiate the report.

Totalitarian regimes throughout history have attempted to marginalize those people that the state intended to target for persecution. Once a group or groups of people had been sufficiently marginalized, it wasn’t long before public condemnation and then military retaliation took place. Legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, and now the EEA authorize military power to be used against US citizens, and given the propensity of government propagandists in the National Press Corps to marginalize groups of people whose ideas are thought to be politically incorrect, it’s only a matter of time before the executive branch of the federal government begins utilizing the dictatorial powers that have been granted to it by Congress. And, unfortunately, many State governments seem more than willing to participate in the Machiavellian machinations put forward by Washington, D.C. The MIAC report in the State of Missouri is a prime example.

Sadder still is the way so many Christian pastors and churches have become little more than glorified cheerleaders for Statism and Militarism. While the Trojan Horse of Big Government sits unnoticed in Town Square, so-called Christians spend most of their time either trying to kill each other because of differences of opinion over secondary doctrines, or trying to turn their worship services into miniature versions of Walt Disney World.

I ask you, did you hear anything from your pastor regarding NDAA? Did you hear anything from your pastor regarding the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act? If not, do you really think you will hear him say anything about the EEA? Again I ask you, are not the fundamental principles of liberty as valuable and as scriptural as the so-called “family values” we hear pastors talk so much about? I would argue that without the undergirding foundational principles of liberty (codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights), the so-called “family values” would become moot very quickly! Before Hitler’s government could begin marching people off to concentration camps, it had to destroy the foundational elements of liberty in the hearts and minds of the German people–including German pastors and churches. A government that doesn’t respect your liberty will not respect your life, your family, your religion, or your morality!

At this point, I invite readers to watch my address from last Sunday, January 8, 2012. In this address, I deal forthrightly with the NDAA and show the scriptural instruction regarding how unlawful and illegitimate government is the chief source of “tribulation” that the Bible talks so much about. I also give a scriptural outline as to how Christian people are to relate and respond to government–both good and bad. Watch my Sunday address.

While we are on the topic of liberty, someone has produced a fascinating clip of Congressman Ron Paul showing the predictions he made on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2002–along with the fulfillment of those predictions in subsequent news headlines. People who view this brief You Tube video might just begin to understand why Congressman Paul is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands the causes of this loss of liberty taking place in our land. See Dr. Paul’s speech on the House floor.

Given the way congressmen and senators from both major parties are willing to grant dictatorial powers to the President, it seems likely that the EEA will pass in much the same way as did the NDAA. It seems to me that the longer we keep expecting Washington, D.C., to solve our problems, the more our problems will increase. Remember the sagacious words of President Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Listen to that quote.

If we are going to “guard and defend” (Daniel Webster) our liberties, it is going to take states and local communities to do it, because those miscreants in Washington, D.C., are doing everything they can to dismantle our liberties, not protect them. We need State governors, lieutenant governors, attorney generals, and sheriffs to stand in the gap NOW! And in that vein, I invite readers to follow the Fanning-Baldwin Montana gubernatorial campaign at the following Facebook and Twitter page.

In the meantime, beware! The Enemy Expatriation Act is coming soon, and with the way things are going, YOU could be deemed the enemy!

For more by Chuck Baldwin at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

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.

As Barack Hussein Obama kicked off his presidential campaign with a State of the Union message.  The Prevaricator in Chief tried to sound much more mainstream than his actions have shown him to be.  We shall look at any proposals that may actually have both merit and potential for execution at a later date, however for now, let’s look at what American patriot, Thomas Paine might tell him.

However, as John Adams told us, “Facts are stubborn things”. The facts in this case, include the Iowa caucus results being reversed to give Rick Santorum the victory. Romney was no longer 2 – 0 in the prior contests. Another fact was that CBS News, in an obvious attempt to swing the election results, made a clumsy effort to damage the former Speaker with a hatchet job interview with his former wife.

As with many ill-conceived efforts to strong arm the public, an aggressive, confident response can turn the entire situation around. John King’s attempt to put Gingrich on the spot with an embarrassing question turned sour quickly as it was met with a surprisingly determined response that called out the network and the questioner for what they were. The crowd cheered. Instead of turning on the former Speaker, they understood this was just an attempt to dredge up old news and remove the effect of any repentance and change of heart the man may have had.

This was just one of many times the Speaker’s refusal to back down from difficult questions accrued to his benefit and endeared him to the the voters in South Carolina, and the rest of the country. With the response from the voters, some have theorized that this was a media attempt to boost a Romney rival. This thinking is based on the idea that they really are afraid of former frontrunner. I’m not sure this is really the case… however some have this mindset… but then, some think Obama is doing a great job.

In any case, a few days before the primary, the polls started to detect rising support for Newt Gingrich. They didn’t really understand the just how strong his support was, and how impressive his win would be. For those satisfied, or at least, not overly upset with the things going on in our country, it is hard to comprehend how horrified many Americans are at the actions of the ruling elites. Four in ten voted for Gingrich, only a quarter voted for the party’s golden boy. A thirteen point spread is pretty impressive for one who had been trailing in the polls only a few short days before.

Rick Santorum had a solid third place finish, with the endorsement from evangelical leaders. Yet such endorsements alone did not help the man, who would do a good job, but fails to excite the electorate. He did, however, finish ahead of the candidate with the most loyal and aggressive support base.

Some Ron Paul supporters have tried to spin the results as voters not voting against their man, but as voting against Mitt Romney. Gingrich just happened to be the lucky beneficiary of this antipathy. It would seem that a vote for the fourth place finisher, Paul, would also have been a vote against Romney… yet the people chose Newt and Rick Santorum over their heart throb. It could be that some voters have found, not the candidate, but some supporters, too much to deal with and looked for another candidate to support. Dedication is fine, but attacking those who are essentially on the same side, is not the way to win them over.

Each one on the ballot is doing their best to make the best story out of the outcome. However, I’m sure many of the good old boys in the Palmetto State have seen the t-shirt hawked at NASCAR events that reads, “Second Place Is Just The First Loser!” There is no way to spin this other than to say that Newt won this round handily.

Will this begin the momentum that carries him to the White House? Will the media and establishment beat him down so their guy can be McCain 2.0? Is it possible the Santorum or Paul campaign can get a second wind and electrify the voters? I don’t know. Time will tell. I would suggest though, that if your guy isn’t in the first position, it’s time to get to work.

Just don’t try to help your favorite by telling all sorts of disgusting stories about the other competitors. There is very little we have not heard of the nastiness and many of us are tired of it. No one will be convinced of the righteousness of your cause by having their intelligence or patriotism attacked, Remember, we will have to work together as a team to defeat the imposter in the White House when this is over. We can’t do this showing greater hostility to each other than to those destroying our country.

Some will say, but candidate R or candidate G is no different than Barack Hussein Obama. We many not like some, or even many, of their policies, but to say they are the same is utter nonsense. We need to remove the socialistic cancer in our government, then work at fixing the problems it has created. Sure, some will fix them more quickly than others, but we need to stop the bleeding in any way we can… with any one we can!

This small northeastern state, which by virtue of an accident of electoral timing, has found itself in a position of disproportional influence in the national debate. When we look at the political landscape, we find that it is as friendly to conservatives as MSNBC or CNN. How could we expect results different from those reported. We could, perhaps, expect a little deeper analysis in the reporting.

The fact that Jon Huntsman finished third says more about the character of the electorate than the quality of the candidate. When we look at the people running and representing the state, Romney and Huntsman fit right in – Gingrich, Santorum and Perry do not. Does this mean that because New Hampshire elects squishy Republicans and progressive Democrats, the rest of the country should make the same bad decisions?

As shaky as the decision making process is up in the northeast, it may help to clarify the thinking of the rest of us looking to save our great land. The thing we have to understand before shining the cold light of logic on the results is that there is no perfect candidate on list. A perfect candidate may not even exist. Yet, as hard for some as it is, we cannot forget two important points. First, our primary objective needs to be the removal of Barack Hussein Obama from the people’s house. Second, any one of these contenders – yes any one of the contenders – no matter what competing campaigns say, would be less destructive to our country then the current resident.

This is not a justification for accepting pale imitations of the leader we really need. It is a reason to refrain from totally trashing everyone we have issues with. Understanding that we need to defeat the burgeoning dictator, let’s look at what happened.

Romney and his doppelganger, Huntsman, fit the Rockefeller like mindset of many in the northeast. They fit the mildly progressive, big business bent of the old line Republicans. Ron Paul had his loyal band of followers were enhanced by crossover Democrats. In this case, it’s hard to tell if they really see Paul as the alternative to Obama or if they were simply working mischief within the system.

When we get to Santorum, Gingrich and Perry, it is another story entirely. I understand that, to their supporters, they have three entirely different perspectives on the world. Each has some good ideas and essential wisdom, and each has some baggage to slow them down. However, with the three of them in the race, it is virtually assured that none of them will see victory. It is admirable to declare to one’s supporters that the candidate would hang in there to the end and never give up. However there comes a time when it’s best to put personal ambition aside and do what is best for the country.

It is difficult for egos strong enough to run for President to come together, but it is essential that somehow these three work out their differences and unite to save the country. It is interesting how we are in a supposedly more advanced country, and more than two centuries later, but Ben Franklin’s word’s still ring true, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

We cannot be fragmented and win the victory. The other side has little commitment to any principle beyond looting the American people for every penny they can get their hands on, then controlling the American people to the point where we can do nothing about it.

It is time to “Unite or Die”!

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/

There are many reasons the academic elites offer for our inability to live peacefully with each other. It doesn’t seem to matter if the conflict is with people at work, in our neighborhood, or even in our church. We see the same conflicts in our government and among nations. It seems that each of us judges ourselves by our own good intentions… and we judge others by their actions.

We see the president self-righteously declaring his concern for downtrodden. What person with a concern for his fellow man cannot help but feel for those less fortunate. Assuming the purity of his motivation, one can almost understand his recent speech where he declared that if congress would not bend to his will, he would move toward the realization of his ideal society with out them. It doesn’t seem to matter that there are other opinions, other approaches and even other directions that the country could be moving in. More importantly, it doesn’t seem to matter that the Constitution does not grant him that power.

He sees the recalcitrant Republicans – at least those with the courage to stand up to him – as morally depraved in their efforts to keep the poor in his constituency from experiencing the good things our country has to offer. He is assured of the virtue of his course which means, obviously, that those opposed to his schemes are selfishly wanting to use these same constituents for their own evil purposes or, at the least, push them aside and out of the way.

To Barack Hussein Obama, achievement of equality of all Americans… even equality of our country with the rest of the world, is his primary purpose in life. It does not matter to him, nor does it matter to his socialistic groupies, that many people will necessarily be hurt and suffer loss to achieve his concept of heaven on earth.

For those of us who find ourselves on the other side of the issue, not seeing eye to eye with the exalted one with a questionable pedigree, we are up against someone with no concept of the idea that reasonable people can have a different view point than his. Opposition could only come from selfishness, the desire for political gain, or, worst of all… because of his race. For someone with an ethnocentric view of the world, it is not possible to understand that attempts to save the country from his destructive government come from anything other than hatred for people of color.

On the other hand, those of us who value liberty over equality, see the president’s actions in the worst possible light. We take it personally when he says we should be willing to give up more of the fruit of our labor so his powerful government can give it to others to create some sort of fairness in the world. There is evidence of some lack of purity in this pursuit of fairness, as his writings give us fair warning of his desire for retribution for some real and imagined wrongs on a collective basis.

Today our country is a house divided. There are those among us who are working, or wanting to work, to achieve some goal. Then, there are those who are more than willing to take what the workers have created and use it to buy votes and inflict their will on the rest of the country. There are two distinct directions we see for our land. One goes to the right and one to the left. Where is the difference that can be worked out? Where is the room for compromise?

We can follow path A or path B, We can go down one path or the other. One method of working things out, since we don’t want to go in one direction and the other side refuses to go down our path, involves staying where we are as one form of compromise. Whether this option appeals to us or not, that fact that our system is not working should be enough to convince us this choice would not be beneficial.

So we have two competing visions for our country that are really mutually exclusive. If we follow one, we will have a big government taking as much as it can from each of us, creating dependencies where none ever existed and controlling an ever increasing portion of our lives. If we follow the other vision, we will reduce the influence of a self serving government in our lives. Somehow, we can’t have a government increasingly controlling our lives while we reduce its influence on the way we live. It just doesn’t work that way.

One or the other side will win out. Often the builders and producers are concerned about others and try to work amicably with everyone. The takers have no such concern for the niceties of human relations. It may be our desire to get along that ultimately leads to the downfall of our nation. We need to rid ourselves of the illusion that we can have freedom by compromising with those who want to control us.

II Corinthians 6:14b asks, “For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” Freedom and dependence on a government cannot exist in the same space.

As much as we would like to be liked by all, and as much as we like the idea of compromise, in practice these concepts to not really work in this part of the world. The late comedian George Carlin understood what happens when we see two incompatible sides working together “for our good”, “Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

The answer, then, should be obvious. We need to recognize that these domestic enemies of liberty are just as dangerous, if not more so, than those overseas who would destroy us… and they need to be treated, and defeated, as such.

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.

One must start with a deformed theory of human nature to comprehend the rationale for the welfare state.

The cornerstone of Western civilization, beginning with the Old Testament prophets and classical Greek philosophers, was the belief that human nature is constant, unchanging over the ages.  Liberal-progressive-socialist theory, inaugurated by French intellectuals before and after the bloody French Revolution of 1789, propounded the theory that human behavior can be controlled and changed by restructuring society.

In pre-French Revolutionary society, constancy of human nature meant that a good and just society depended upon every individual’s aligning himself with God-given natural law, intuited through religion and philosophy.  No matter whether the ruler was good or bad, every individual needed to do the right thing, to deal fairly with others, to aid widows, orphans, and others in need.  Every individual ultimately would be judged by his Maker.

Liberal-progressive-socialism, exemplified in psychology and the other so-called social sciences established by French intellectuals, hypothesizes in contrast that humans have no capacity to intuit a Divine Creator or a natural law imparted by His Mind, which created the universe.  Humans are just products of Darwinian evolution, beings whose fundamental characteristic is response to external agents of pleasure or pain.  Intellectuals therefore can manipulate evolution with laws and regulations to compel people in the mass to respond as the intellectuals intend.

The cornerstone question, then, is whether individuals can be relied upon to perceive their own best interests, or whether only Ivy League intellectuals and Democrat/Socialist Party politicians can know wherein lie the best interests of the masses, e.g., electric cars, shutting down industries that create jobs but emit CO2, and supporting mafia-style labor unions and “green” ventures.

If the Judeo-Christian Western civilizational paradigm is correct, government should encourage religion as the best means to impart individual morality and responsibility, and government should give maximum free rein to individual initiative and creativity.

If President Obama and his fellow liberal-progressive-socialists are correct, ultimately everyone should be employed by the government, because only government is able to improve peoples lives, only government perceives what is best for the masses, only government can protect helpless members of the mass from predations of capitalist businessmen.

Svetlana Kunin, who grew up under the liberal-progressive benevolence of the Soviet Union, explores the implications of those differing views in an op-ed piece appearing on the Investors’ Business Daily website. Read Who Created Prosperity? Bureaucrats Or Individuals?

[This article was originally published in The View From 1776 blog.]