The process of eliminating public protection in the city with the fourth highest crime rate the country shows the city fathers (and mothers) are following the old political practice of funding the lowest priorities first. Then, when the money is gone and the public still had needs, it is much easier to come back and ask for more money. For some reason, up to this point, people believed that the elected representatives were really working for the good of the public. How many citizens would accept a tax increase for extra flowers for the park across town? Yet, these things are often already bought and paid for when weeping and wailing is heard in the halls of power because some essential services will have to be cut. Here’s a helpful hint – don’t believe a word of it!

The idea is to create the maximum inconvenience for the maximum number of people. Oakland residents will have to make do with less police protection. This can have life and death consequences for those who find themselves in need. Cutbacks like this hit voters at the gut level as they see the criminal element taking over more and more of their city – and they become an easy touch as their representatives work to pry open their wallets. While the unions need to be reigned in, cutting down on public protection is not the way to make their city a better place to live.

A little trip this weekend showed me one of the possible results of these cutbacks. Police officers are not stupid. Many see the writing on the wall. Governments are a lot like real businesses. They are concerned with such things as expenses and revenue. When municipalities cut back on police departments, they are also cutting back on a source of revenue. This point was brought home to me as I headed down to Sandbridge Beach from the Richmond VA area.

On one short, ten mile stretch of Route 295, State Troopers had drivers pulled over in each direction. This is to be expected as we are told that heavy traffic, vacation times require tighter law enforcement in the name of public safety. However, as I traveled down Route 460 through one sleepy little town after another, with speed limits popping up and dropping down with predictable regularity, I passed through one such town that appeared to have a population of about thirty seven people and two shiny new police cars.

Each of these shiny new police cars, lights flashing brightly, sat by the side of the road, behind some hapless motorist as the officers, in the crisply pressed uniforms, politely produced traffic tickets that enhanced the finances of their sleepy little town. In the past, some remote southern towns have developed a reputation for fleecing unsuspecting, usually out of state, visitors as a matter of public policy and finance. As I said before, police officers are not stupid. It may be that the thought has occurred to some that by enhancing revenue for their employers, they enhance the likelihood that they can actually keep their jobs.

This is not to impugn the many officers working to keep us safe. Unfortunately one of the things they cannot protect us from is greedy “public servants” who maybe looking to increased zoning, traffic and building code enforcement to help cover budget shortfalls. This may or may not be happening in your area, but be forewarned… governments at all levels want your money… they say they “need” it, but we know the truth, don’t we?

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

Don’t you get tired of people pussyfooting around about the nonsense taking place in Washington and around our country? Many speak of their “concern” about freedom destroying trends in hushed tones. Words that come from pastors like Rev. Swaggart are said to be inflammatory and not very helpful in our multi-cultural, diversity worshiping world. These people don’t want to rock the boat or are afraid to be seen as extremists. They are afraid of what others will think. They wring their hands and wonder, “what can we do?” All this, just like the Jews in Germany during the 1930s.

Compartmentalized Christians who split their lives between Sunday morning, and their own time, won’t like or even comprehend what the preacher in the video was saying. Those who understand that life cannot be split into segments with conflicting loyalties know exactly what Brother Swaggart is talking about. Those without even a claim to the Christian faith will see him as foolish, ridiculous and even dangerous. However without this understanding and passion, our efforts will turn out to be half hearted and futile.

Whatever else each of us finds we must do, I believe Charles Stanley from Atlanta has the ultimate answer that will back to the America God gave us. What is he suggesting? Two things really. The answer is found in II Chronicles 7:14 “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” (NIV) The two things are that we (the Christians, not the philistines running our world) need to do is seek the hand of God to work on our behalf, and the hard part, clean up our own lives… stop acting like the rest of the world. We are here, but can anyone tell we are different? Is there enough evidence in your life that you could be convicted of being a Christian?

Dr. Stanley is calling us to 140 Days of Intercession for America – twenty weeks, with a different focus each week such as Personal Preparation, Increasing Taxation and Killing the Unborn. Find out more at InTouch.org. Sign up to be a prayer warrior, then hit your knees… it’s the surest, and in reality, the only way to victory.

Highway 40 runs the width of Tennessee and beyond. This ribbon of asphalt gives truth to the saying that in the volunteer state they have two seasons, winter and highway construction. Anyone who has made the run in or out of Nashville can attest to the fact that the smooth high speed run across the state is invariably broken by periods of restful pause as one sits in line waiting to get through yet another construction zone.

Pennsylvanians living along Route 22 that runs through the Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton, especially the last few miles before crossing the Deleware, can tell tales of constant construction repairing this or that section of road. It’s been rumored that some PennDot employees have spent their entire careers on this stretch of road. While we all recognize the need to keep up our infrastructure and hate bouncing our cars over the pot holes that never seem to go away, it is often easy to relate to the frustrations of the Michael Douglas character in the 1993 movie Falling Down.

I just completed a ten day swing up through the northeast for a graduation and wedding along with a little family vacation time. We spent far too much time on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, which surprisingly enough, were about the only roads that had no shovel ready projects ready to absorb the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds congress borrowed from the Chinese in an attempt to undo the damage to our economy done by previous federal interventions.

Everywhere else, it was Highway 40 and US 22 on steroids. It was difficult to go more than a few miles without either being part of a construction site or seeing signs telling us one was to be part of our immediate future. Some even had the gall to place notices somewhere near the start that funding came from the ARRA. I felt good, seeing my children’s tax dollars at work, and wondered how they would pay for repairs needed in their time.

As I passed through the sites, it did my heart good to see all the union workers… some doing so… some watching and the politically connected contractors gainfully employed while much of the rest of the country struggles. I guess it’s like NJ Governor Christie said, that the government workers (and apparently contractors as well) have not participated in the recession.

There appears to be a new protected class, a class that lives off of our tax dollars and hardly ever bites the Democratic hand that feeds it. They have a pretty good relationship that leaves the rest of us out in the cold – or at least leaves us with the bill. It follows the old political principle of narrowly defined benefit with broad based cost.

With my apologies to Larry Cordle who wrote the Ricky Scaggs hit, we are all feeling a different kind of Highway 40 Blues, no matter what road we are traveling down. Some of the construction work, highway and who knows what else, is necessary. Some is not. But all of it will be paid for by several generations of Americans, and the bulk of money will be going to the “right” people, which, for the most part, is not Joe Lunchbox who is just trying to make ends meet… unless he has the right union card.

It’s not just highways, our benefactors are doing their best to see that we have nice, attractive buildings powered with green energy, populated by well paid government employees offering us seats in fine furniture when we come in to apply for our welfare check. Unfortunately, for this plan to work, it is necessary to turn the middle class into part of the dependent class. But, we will be able to have our checks deposited automatically into our government bank accounts. I really appreciate their consideration.

The true essence of the 4th Amendment, that is, probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, found by the Framers, as the best, and only, reason for depriving a citizen of his, or her, fundamental God-given right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, was changed, without constitutional amendment by eight justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio (1968), the will of the Earl Warren Court, essentially threw out “probable cause” from the 4th Amendment and made it much easier for all police officers to deprive a citizen of a basic constitutional right that the writers of the U.S. Constitution saw as sacrosanct.

From what we know about the almost unanimous 1968 decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren carefully courted the vote of each of the justices, just as he had done in Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), in order to produce a, hopefully, unanimous vote. To change the letter of the U.S. Constitution, without amendment, the Court had to show unanimity, because the decision, in and of itself, was basically illegal, if it had been subsequently challenged by the U.S. Congress. The only vote Warren was unable to acquire in 1968 was that of the Justice William O. Douglas, who vehemently wrote in his dissenting opinion, “To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment.” (392 U.S. 1, at 38). A few days after the decision was rended, Justice Douglas supposedly quipped to a reporter off-the-cuff that “if the Court can arbitrarily change the 4th Amendment, to read as it wants it to read, what is next, changing the word “respecting” to “denying” in the 1st Amendment?” What amazes me is the immediate, or latent, lack of opposition to the decision by the American people, when a section of the Bill of Rights was altered by the collective whim of eight of the Brethren, instead of by decree of the American electorate through the amendment process.

Hence, police officers have the opportunity to arrest quite a few more criminal suspects without showing probable cause for the arrests. The Terry stop, as police officers routinely call such a routine deprivation of personal liberty, can be made by local, state, and federal enforcers for almost any reason, and all the sworn officers need to do is to write arrest reports, true or otherwise, reflecting that they had “reasonable suspicion’ to support a belief that the suspects had committed crimes, were planning to commit crimes, or were in the process of committing crimes in order to support the Terry stops. If Terry stops are actually unfounded and heinous illegal deprivations of personal liberty, the poor victims of fascist police tactics have the duty of proving such facts in court, and, of course, we know that police officers “never” lie under oath, or otherwise.

Having been a police officer, I felt, during the time I wore a badge, the immense obligation and burden of correctly and prudently enforcing the law, and, in doing so, not depriving citizens of their basic inalienable rights under the law. And during my time spent with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, I witnessed more than a few instances of deliberate abuse of, then, Sheriff John Duffy’s voters under the color of police authority by numerous rogue and violent deputies and watch commanders, who, when officially questioned about their abuses, were supported by the lies of other, less violent deputies and Sheriff’s Department officials who didn’t want the insidious title of “rat” attached to them. Though there are many good honorable cops currently in local, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, I am sadly afraid, nevertheless, that way too many men and women, under the age of 30, who are overly aggressive, under-educated, and have backgrounds and personalities that will, later-on, conflict, with their prudent enforcement of the law, are currently being hired by these agencies. The type of law enforcement practiced by the thousands of police agencies around the nation is a direct reflection of the basic type of individuals they hire to enforce the law. Many of the same young naturally violent men, and women, who were actively recruited by the U.S. Military to bear arms during Desert Storm, in the 1990s, and during the post-9/11 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, are today wearing the uniforms of law enforcement, most of them federal. Many of these returning Vets, who found killing excitingly palatable in Iraq and Afghanistan, are sadly, today, the regular perpetrators of ritual abuse of citizens, and non-citizens, while as sworn peace officers. As the old saying goes, violence breeds continued violence, and the violent abuse under color of authority, committed against suspects by those wearing badges, implicitly conveys to an unwitting public a contradiction of the basic police purpose, to protect and serve.

Let’s take a look at another scenario, where the correct enforcement of Arizona’s illegal immigration law will really matter. Suppose that there is a 7-Eleven store in Mesa, Arizona where, perhaps, fifty Hispanic males gather every morning to be offered work by Arizona contractors, builders, etc. The normal, traditional process is for a potential employer to pull-up to the 7-Eleven in a pick-up, or with a trailer, and shout out the number of workers he, or she, will need for the day. In response to the offer, the requisite number of workers will then jump onto the trailer, or into the pick-up, and the employer will drive quickly away. Consequently, Mesa police officers realize that, of the fifty-or-more Hispanics gathered at the 7-Eleven, a high percentage of them are illegal aliens. In fact, most of the sworn officers of the Mesa Police Department are probably unable, at first sight, to detect the differences between persons of Hispanic descent and those of Middle-Eastern descent. Both have brown, or dark brown, complexions, and both are equally capable of committing crimes. Racial profiling is pretty-much necessary in order to properly distinguish between people of the two racial groups. Police attention is, therefore, immediately drawn to large gatherings of individuals, of any racial or ethnic grouping, in order to determine the legitimate reasons for the gatherings.

Hence, two police officers pull-up to the 7-Eleven in their vehicles, and immediately see ten-or-more of the individuals begin running away from the scene. The officers, using their authority under Terry v. Ohio (1968), reasonably suspect that these men running away are in the commission of a crime, are planning a crime, or have committed a crime. So, they begin a pursuit of the suspects and apprehend three of them, while the others escape immediate scrutiny. One of the three men attempts to resist arrest, and fights the police officers while brandishing a stiletto knife, and is hit about the head and shoulders, and subdued, by one of the officers with a baton. The three men are subsequently handcuffed and placed into the police vehicles for transport to a holding jail. Other officers are called as backup to the 7-Eleven, and of the forty remaining brown skinned individuals, thirty of them are found to be illegal Hispanic aliens, having no documentation showing a legal right to be in the country and unable to speak coherent English. The Hispanic male who pulled the knife during the foot pursuit is, later, found to be the perpetrator of five unsolved residential burglaries that have occurred in the Mesa area. Now, is this an example of racial profiling? Yes it is, but a very legitimate use of the process. As for the safety of the legal residents of the City of Mesa, the investigation of the large gathering of brown-skinned males at the 7-Eleven, made by the police officers, resulted in the arrest of an illegal alien burglar. This made the city much more safe. When apprehension of a criminal suspect is necessary for the sake of public safety, any facet of description that will make it easier for law enforcement to make a valid arrest, especially in cases of serial murder and serial rape, will be found useful.

In summation, racial profiling is very necessary in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society for law enforcement to properly do its job. It is so important that the FBI and state investigative agencies have established separate behavioral science/profiling departments and training centers. The FBI Academy, at Quantico, Virginia, has trained numerous state and federal profilers to investigate crimes in order to establish credible racial, ethnic, behavioral, forensic, and psychological/behavioral descriptions of suspected perpetrators so that their apprehension will be made easier for law enforcement. Behaviors typically associated with ethnic/racial custom, such as the almost ritual practice of black men touching fists instead of shaking hands, or the various Muslim behavioral rituals, are discreetly analyzed today in profiling when seeking perpetrators of crimes. This is hardly comparable to the untenable accusation made by racists against white police officers of stereotypically stopping black people in late model cars for simply having a black skin, or driving while black (DWB). If Barack Obama, or, for that matter, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, knew anything at all about law enforcement, the President of the United States would not be criticizing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for signing into law legislation that will allow Arizona peace officers to investigate, apprehend, and arrest those Hispanics in Arizona who fit the description of illegal aliens. Politics and law enforcement have never really blended well. The tragedies of 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission debacle bear this out quite well. It’s sort of like the case of former San Diego mayor, Roger Hedgecock, and his arrest by a San Diego peace office for driving under the influence of alcohol. The arresting officer, for some reason, didn’t know what he should do with the offending inebriated Mayor of San Diego. So, he called his watch commander who ordered him to take the mayor home and put him to bed, and not to jail. Well, this action placed Roger Hedgecock well above the law, and when the people of San Diego found out what had happened, Hedgecock suddenly had to kiss his meteoric political future goodbye.

Of course, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston has established a significant 2004 precedent in favor of a standing U.S. President by dismissing a lawsuit brought by a San Francisco attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victims’ families against George W. Bush and several of his administration, citing “sovereign immunity” as the basis for the dismissal. Sovereign immunity basically means that a standing U.S. President can commit murder while in office and will not have to stand trial for the crime in a federal court. A political, not judicial, process called impeachment is, supposedly, the only way a President can be tried and brought to justice for his crimes, that is, before the U.S. Senate, with the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding. But first, there has to be enough political votes in the House of Representatives to indict a standing President. As opposed to a traditional country grand jury, comprised of ordinary citizens, each representative in the House of Representatives has something to politically gain, or lose, by voting yes, or no, to impeachment. Impeachment, therefore, is a thoroughly political process, not one wrought through the channels of criminal justice. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly say that a President, and his henchmen, cannot be tried civilly in the federal court system for egregious intentional torts, but it doesn’t explicitly say one can. Perhaps this is the reason that Mr. Obama is doing whatever he pleases with no fear of reprisal; and it was the same way with Dubya, Slick Willy & Hillary Clinton, and the duplicitous political actor Ronny Ray Gun.

Racial profiling can be portrayed by sensationally ridiculous political figures, such as Al Sharpton and people like him, as something heinous and reprehensible; but if the good Reverend Sharpton is ever mugged and robbed in a multi-racial/ethnic neighborhood by a large Hispanic man, and the police refuse to accept and broadcast a description of the man’s race, even if Sharpton keeps on whining, insisting that a big “brown” man hit him and took his money, the evening television news will end up saying, “Search underway for big man who mugged Rev. Al Sharpton, race and skin color of the man not a consideration in the manhunt.”

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, was a sworn San Diego County, California, Deputy Sheriff, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin has attended LaJolla, California’s National University and Malibu’s Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

You can mark it down: every major crisis that America has faced over the last several decades has been either manufactured or facilitated by policies and activities originating in Washington, D.C. But at the same time that DC is creating these crises, it categorizes any ideological group it finds distasteful as a convenient scapegoat. These convenient scapegoats can include “angry white guys,” “tea party extremists,” “a vast right-wing conspiracy,” Constitution Party or Libertarian Party “extremists,” “Second Amendment extremists” (gun owners), “pro-life extremists,” ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Yet, while DC’s elitists are plotting America’s next crisis and figuring out whom to categorize as America’s next “extremist,” some real enemies are waging war against the freedoms and liberties of our once-great republic. And, ladies and gentlemen, these enemies are much more subtle, a lot closer, and much more dangerous than almost anything you are being told about.

Here are some of freedom’s real enemies:

Big Cities

When the United States was a much smaller–much more agricultural—nation, our freedoms were mostly intact. The mass exodus out of rural America into urban America has been a bane of freedom–and it will continue to be so.

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue astutely when he wrote in a letter to James Madison, “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe.” (Source: The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson)

Jefferson spoke again of this danger in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He wrote, “I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue and freedom, would be my choice.” (Source: Ibid.)

Big cities are most always more liberal, more socialistic, more utopian, and more centralist. Citizens living in big cities readily submit to the machinations and designs of Big Government with much greater regularity than do their rural counterparts. In states where a handful of big cities dominate State politics, Big-Government policies almost always take over the politics of the entire State. If you doubt that, just speak with freedom-loving citizens in New York, Illinois, or Maryland.

Consider, specifically, the freedom most necessary to preserve our liberties: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People in states that are less populated enjoy much greater liberty than do people in heavily populated states. For example, Boston’s Gun Bible (BGB) ranks the states according to the degree of gun ownership (and possession) protection in each State. It is no coincidence that the states with sparser populations are much freer than states with denser populations.

Here is BGB’s breakdown of the most and least free gun ownership states:

Most Free States:

1. Vermont

2. Idaho and Kentucky (tie)

3. Louisiana and Alaska (tie)

4. Wyoming

5. Montana

Least Free States:

1. New Jersey

2. Illinois

3. Hawaii

4. Massachusetts

5. New York

Population density in the “most free” states is less than 50 persons per square mile, while in the “least free” states it is more than 460 persons per square mile. Case closed!

While big cities will typically tolerate much more in the way of licentiousness and sexual perversion, they are also the first to tolerate Big-Government socialism. Without a doubt, Thomas Jefferson was right: big cities are “pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.”

If you want to live free in the future, you will probably need to leave the big city–and perhaps the states that are dominated by big cities.

The National News Media

For the most part, the national news media is no friend of freedom. About all most of them know of the US Constitution is the part about the “freedom of the press” (from the First Amendment, of course). Watch any of the Big Three television network newscasts on any weekday evening, and what will you see? You will see the exact same stories regurgitated over and over again–even with the exact same spin! And that spin is most always tilted toward bigger and bigger government. This goes on night after night, week after week, month after month, and year after year. But this is all just coincidental, right? Get real!

The cable news networks are not much better. About the only difference between cable networks is that CNN will provide cover for Big Government Democrats while viciously attacking all things Republican, and FOX NEWS will provide cover for Big Government Republicans while viciously attacking all things Democrat.

Face it: the national news media is intoxicated with Two Party Politics. They really don’t care nearly as much about the fundamental tenets and principles of liberty as they do about whether a Democrat or Republican wins office. Washington’s media elite are wined and dined by the same party politicians that they cover on television or in the newspaper. (What a racket!) Do you really think any major media news personality is going to risk losing his or her job (which is exactly what would happen) by asking too many questions, or boring too deeply, or straying too far off the reservation? Once again, get real! All of these guys and gals know exactly where the line–and the “third rail”–is located. And they all will stay clear of both! It’s not about reporting the news, or defending liberty, or anything of the sort. It is about pleasing their big corporate sponsors–corporate sponsors who are in bed with the elites from both major political parties, by the way!

As long as the American people continue to allow the national news media to manipulate and spin the news, our liberties will continue to erode.

Big Business

In fact, Big Anything can be freedom’s enemy: Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media, Big Cities, and Big Religion. Big Anything!

However, the rate and degree to which Big Business has been able to advance during the last half of the twentieth century–and now into the twenty-first century–is especially problematic for the survival of liberty. Dear friend, it is a mistake to equate Big Business with freedom. Big Business has little to do with capitalism and free enterprise and much to do with monopolism and globalism. Big Business does not want to compete with private enterprise; it wants to crush it! Big Business sees Big Government as a friend and partner. In fact, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins. They grow and live as one.

Accordingly, it is no accident that when the Bilderbergers got together a few days ago at the Hotel Dolce in Sitges, Spain, for their super-secret meeting, the list of attendees included the cabal of super-elites from Big Government, Big Business, Big Academia, and Big Media. People such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Roger Altman (former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury), Martin Feldstein (Harvard University), Niall Ferguson (Harvard University), Philip Gordon (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs), Donald Graham (The Washington Post), Richard Holbrooke (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Robert Hormats (Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Klaus Kleinfeld (Chairman and CEO, Alcoa), Craig Mundie (Microsoft), Peter Orszag (Director, Office of Management and Budget), Charlie Rose (Producer, Rose Communications), Robert Rubin (Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; former Secretary of the Treasury), Eric Schmidt (CEO and Chairman of the Board, Google), James Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), Lawrence Summers (Director, National Economic Council), Christine Varney (Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust), and Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board). And please remember that these are only the names of those that were published. The complete list of attendees is top secret and never released. For example, was Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner there? He is a Bilderberg (and CFR) member.

But of course, this meeting–complete with the tightest security and secrecy possible–is only for the purpose of social fellowship and clubmanship, right? That the world’s most interconnected business, governmental, and media elites would meet outside the viewing and listening of everyone is supposed to be dismissed as irrelevant and insignificant, right? Well, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or FOX NEWS, that is exactly what you are being led to believe.

Yet, Big Business has been conspiring with Big Government for the purpose of personal aggrandizement (at the cost of liberty, of course) for decades–probably centuries. Remember, it took an act of Congress to stop old Prescott Bush (George H.W. Bush’s father and G.W. Bush’s grandfather) from sending financial assistance to Nazi Germany. Know, too, that international bankers today are supporting governments (some that are openly hostile to the United States) in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Again, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins–an interconnected body that grows in unison at the expense of our liberties.

Freedom has many more real enemies that could be added to this list, of course; and maybe in the future we can talk more about them. For now, recognize that our liberties are hanging by a thread in this country. And the next time you hear someone in Washington, D.C., or the national news media railing against the latest “crisis” that requires Big Government to fix, please remember who the real enemy is.

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

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions–everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”

I submit that a good many in America are, like Rome of old, carelessly frittering away their God-given liberties, foolishly clamoring for nothing more than government handouts and never-ending entertainment. Millions and millions of Americans (especially males) are literally intoxicated with sports. Sports are no longer a great American pastime; they are now a great American obsession.

Mind you, this writer has been a sports fan all of his life. I began playing organized basketball in the fifth grade; I was on the high school wrestling team; I played football in high school and college; and I ran track. Still today, I enjoy watching a good NFL game (yes, I’m still a Green Bay Packers fan), a good college game when the Gators are playing, a good NCAA men’s basketball game (especially during the tournament–even more so when the Hoosiers are in it), and any NBA championship series between the Celtics and Lakers (I root for Boston). And I even like to watch a round of professional golf once in a while (it helps me go to sleep when I’m trying to take a nap). But none of the above will interfere with anything that is important, and I am not going to plan my whole universe around any of it. If it is convenient, I will watch. If it’s not, I will read about it in the sports section of the newspaper. And I’m certainly not going to spend my hard-earned money following any sports team (even those I like) all over the country like some rock band groupie.

I am not talking about sports in general; I am talking about the way many American men have allowed sports to control and dominate their lives. With many, sports are not just a hobby; they are a religion. I cannot count the number of conversations between men that I overhear in restaurants, airplanes, boardrooms, and, yes, even church houses, in which every man in the circle is literally consumed with all sorts of sports facts, information, and opinions. In many such discussions, these men will talk about nothing else. To these men, there is absolutely nothing in the world more important than the latest sports score, announcement, or trade. NOTHING!

And there is also a very real psychological pitfall associated with a man’s intoxication with sports. I submit that an obsession with sports gives men a false sense of masculinity and actually serves to steal true manhood from them.

For example, it used to be when men stripped their shirts off and painted their faces, they were heading to the battlefield to kill the tyrant’s troops. Now they are headed off to the sports coliseum to watch a football game. A man’s ego and machismo was once used to protect his family and freedom; now it’s used to tout batting averages and box scores. The fact is, if we could get the average American male to get as exercised and energized about defending the historic principles upon which liberty and Western Civilization are built as he is in defending his favorite quarterback or NASCAR driver, our country would not be in the shape it is in today.

The sad reality is that much of today’s masculinity is experienced only vicariously through a variety of sports teams and personalities. Instead of personally flexing our muscles for God and country, freedom and liberty, or home and hearth, we punch the air and beat our chests over touchdowns and home runs (even though we had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them ourselves). Instead of getting in the face of these would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., who are doing everything they can to steal the American dream, we get in the face of the poor umpire who makes a bad call or the Little League coach who doesn’t play my son enough. Our happiness, well-being, and mood are not determined by anything personally achieved (or lost), but by what others accomplished (or didn’t accomplish) at the ball park. Whether our children inherit a land of liberty and freedom does not seem nearly as important as whether they make the starting lineup on the football team.

Add to an epidemic obsession with sports the demand for more and more handouts from Big Brother and the outlook for liberty is not good. Everywhere we turn, we seem to hear people clamoring for government to give them more and more. They expect government to supply their every need and meet their every demand. They then have the gall to turn around and say, “God bless America: land of the free”?

Ladies and gentlemen, one cannot have it both ways. If we expect government to be our supplier, we cannot expect that it will not become our master. Always remember this: government has nothing to give except that it first takes it from someone else. Every dollar and every job that government gives is first taken from someone else. Furthermore, every job given to government is another freedom–and another dollar–taken from the citizenry. Every government job brings with it a restriction, a prohibition, a regulation, an inspection, a fee, a tax, an assessment, etc. As government grows, freedom shrinks. As government spends, wealth shrinks. And as government hires, opportunity shrinks.

Most historians agree with Juvenal that the mighty Roman Empire collapsed from within due to a morally reckless, selfish, pleasure-crazed, sports-obsessed, bread and circus society that willingly surrendered the principles of self-government to an insatiable central government that, through perpetual wars and incessant handouts, destroyed a once-great republic.

By all appearances, the bread and circus society has reared its ugly head in America. And make no mistake about it: if the people of the United States do not quickly repent of this madness, the consequences will be just as destructive for our once-great republic as it was for Rome.

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

He also says that in the beginning, taking BP’s word that the situation as not that serious and that they could handle it, he kept pretty much on the sidelines. This was before he put his well manicured boot on their neck. Again the facts don’t fit the White House narrative. The New York Daily News reports that:

Days after the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up, Carol Browner, head of the White House’s Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama the explosion would result in a never-before-seen disaster.

Knowing what was coming, doing nothing for weeks, just didn’t seem to be in the best interest of the American people… especially those along the Gulf coast. As the weeks passed, the damage increased and the crisis matured. However, in keeping with the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system and the Emanuel philosophy of never letting a good crisis go to waste the presidential behavior is completely understandable.

Now, after weeks of federal denial of Louisiana’s request to build barriers, the government is taking some action. While the National Guard has been on hand for several weeks moving sand and working to forestall the impending disaster, there are now reports that more guardsmen in full battle gear including body armor rolling into Grand Isle in armored Humvees complete with 50 caliber guns are coming to join them. One has to wonder if we are expecting an Iranian submarine to slip into the Louisiana waters under cover of the oil slick and drop off some terrorists to sneak in to the country. It seems like a lot of effort when coming through Mexico would be so much easier.

One island resident I’ve contacted describes the situation this way:

We have about 40 National Guard trucks here right now. That does not count the Humvees and/or the ATV’s bearing the National Guard signage. That’s my best guess at this time. The National Guard are occupying many of the camps which are weekly summer rentals. Also, they are guarding the BP/E S & H Encampment at the end of the island near the state park. This place is beginning to look more like an occupied country than a seven mile strip of land.

Then, talking about efforts up to now, they continue:

Don’t know why they’re here when our fish and shrimp boats are supposedly hired to lay boom and skim the oil. There are hundreds of boats waiting to be hired on to help and hundreds which are hired on to help but seem to be kept on perpetual “stand by”.

The whole story, at least in that part of Louisiana, appears to be one of underutilized and misapplied resources. The National Guard is populated by some of America’s finest young men and women. They are willing go where they are told and do just about any any task asked of them. The question is, what will they be asked to do?

Will they be asked to protect or take over the BP complex? Are they there to insure against a peasant revolt… or insure that one takes place? Sure it sounds like conspiracy thinking, but guardsmen moving into an area to clean beaches and oil slicked birds don’t need combat gear… the Mexican border does.

Sometimes it’s hard to know what is going on in the world these days. It’s hard to know if all reports are accurate. The tragedy of our time is that such stories are not outside the scope of believability. Our government has taken such actions so that even the wildest theories seem plausible. Residents of Grand Isle don’t know what is going on. They see their lives being turned upside down. They just see armed military personnel, and they are confused and scared… and the oil keeps pumping… and the President keeps fiddling.

In watching the reaction to the Israeli enforcement of the Gaza blockade, I am amazed at how much support there is for the Palestinian and those trying to slip through to them. I guess it should not be so surprising as the Jewish people have the object of hate and derision through the ages. They have been persecuted almost everywhere they have lived. What is most disturbing is it is not peasants from some third world country who don’t have the education or common sense to know any better… it is our own fellow Americans who like to think of themselves as so open minded and tolerant – that prejudice is the last thing on their minds.

Even if one does not understand the historical and spiritual significance of Jewish people returning to their home land, just observing the parties in the middle east should show the foolishness and short sightedness of that position. Just as the values are inverted by our government in looking at the tea partiers as a threat to domestic tranquility while ignoring a havoc raised by illegals sneaking across the border, cozying up to people who send their own children to kill themselves in the name of hatred as the older folks hurl rockets into schools and hospitals of people trying to mind their own business just doesn’t make sense.

Just as the press and world community always put a positive spin on the adventures of our illustrious president they do just the opposite for Israel. It is always cast as the villain. However, let’s look at what they have done. Since 1949 they have turned an 11th century desert into a modern society… an oasis in a sandy wasteland. So many of their opponents are now strong advocates of UN sanctions and actions against the Jewish state. Have they forgotten that the state was created by a UN partitioning of the land? The land was occupied by the British… it was not taken from peaceful nomadic Arabs.

The existence of the state was more than the irritation to the descendants of Ishmael of having the descendants of Isaac in the neighborhood… although that adds to the intensity of their hatred. They hate the west and want to convert and conquer the west… and by being a western society, Israel is a festering sore in the region. Removing it would not pacify the radical Islamists. It would just embolden them to just carry their quest for world dominance.

It could be argued that not everyone in the region is an extreme jihadist, and this is true, but immaterial. Hamas is in control and they stay in control by removing opposition, sometimes brutally. The people are simply pawns, prevented from assimilating into any culture by leaders who want them to be perpetual refugees… building hatred for those who, they are told, are occupying their land.

The sad thing is that some well meaning Christians, not just those in liberal churches, find themselves aligned with the unsavory people trying to push the Jews into the sea. Reading some comments made by these Christian friends recently, I was shocked and dismayed by the hostility toward Israel… especially the intensity of the hatred… calling the Israelis pure evil and worse. I am concerned for them because of what we see in Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” They apparently did not realize that they were mouthing the words of Hamas, al Qaeda, PLO today and such past shining examples of humanity as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. Just the company alone should give them pause.

While we are given freedom of speech along with free will, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, I ask those siding with those who would like to destroy the Israelis (and us, for that matter) to reconsider. We are told to love our enemies. These people are doing fine in overlooking the sins of those who would kill us… but not so much with those who would not.

By: James Numark

After viewing and taking part in many debates about national health care, I have been exposed to some interesting arguments both for and against. In the course of the conversations I heard the usual liberal tactic to attack those of a Christian persuasion stating that not supporting national health care is not being Christian as if the two ideas are congruent. After fighting back the urge to throw my laptop in some symbolic gesture of displeasure for the spreading of this falsehood, I decided to consider how Christ, and therefore a Christian, might view nationalized health care.

I looked to the recorded examples of how Christ viewed the caring of those in need and specifically those with health problems. I find no example of Christ endorsing government involvement in anything let alone health care. Jesus Christ never taught that it was Caesar who was to take care of the poor and the needy. Pilate was not required of Christ to take care of the people’s medical care. In contrast to these two points I read of countless stories where Christ taught the power and opportunity of each person to do what they can and chose to offer assistance for those in need as far as they are able. We are not to wait for Caesar to do what lies in our own power. Not even in the Mormon church today does the church provide health insurance for its members. It could very easily do so through its various arms and divisions as part of tithing, but it doesn’t. Why? It isn’t that medical coverage is bad, or that the LDS church doesn’t believe in medical care like Scientology. There are precious truths and reasons why this is. I encourage you to find other reasons why that is.

As Christ did not teach that it was Caesar’s job to provide health care for the people, it is my opinion that national health care is not a matter of being Christian. Christ actually taught opposing principles to those embraced by those in favor of National Health Care and other welfare programs. Christ taught that charity was the responsibility of each individual and that each individual was to chose to find ways to help one another and not pawn that responsibility off on someone else or on the arms of government. Anyone trying to say otherwise is propagating a lie that has no foundation in the teachings of TRUE Christianity. It is also false to think that national health care has the monopoly on good works. Good works are always possible. Of a truth, it is he or she who does good works that bears the mark of a true Christian. Supporting national health care or paying a tax for someone else’s health care does not make a person Christian. In fact, one could say that taking away the individuals repsonbility to help their fellow man is decidedly anti-christian.

About the Author

James Numark is one of the founders and major contributors to the Spirit of the Law Blog.

Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States.

I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States.

Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline. Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever.

It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens. If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered. The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other. It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage.

But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members. Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.

The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

PUBLIUS.