A Failed Experiment Gives Occasion to Restore Freedom -- by Timothy Baldwin

Attorney Timothy Baldwin has granted me permission to post his articles on this site and I am very greatful.  If you are not reading his site already I encourage you to do so.  Visit his site by clicking here.  Also, check out his book Freedom for a Change.  I hope you enjoy the read!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that the United States Constitution was considered to be an EXPERIMENT. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike admitted it was an experiment, and it has been described as such ever since. Evidently, Americans use the term not knowing what it actually means or implies. So, what was it that made this form of government experimental? Before answering the question, let us initially identify what was NOT unique about the U.S. Constitution–aspects that many probably consider to exhibit the unique and singular greatness of the U.S. Constitution, but in reality, are not unique at all and were in fact borrowed.
First, the separation of powers in the federal government was not new. That element of government had been around literally since Moses governed Israel in Canaan. Great Britain exercised a separation of powers as well: executive power in the Monarch, legislative power in Parliament and judicial power in the courts. Second, that the form was a democratic-republic was not new. The European states and countries had exercised self-government to a greater degree than just about any other people in the history of the world. Thirdly, the experiment was not in having a bill of rights. Such an acknowledgement of people’s rights had existed in the European countries since the Magna Charta in 1215. Neither did the experiment lie in such components as term limits, voting, limited government authority, a two-house congress and the like. All of these had been well established throughout the governments of the world. All of those aspects were a given, but were only debated in terms of preference and compromise.  The U.S. Constitution was in fact not new on virtually every component of its composure. So, what made it an EXPERIMENT, such that the freedom it (along with the State constitutions already in place) was supposed to protect was very susceptible to abuse and destruction? What was it about the U.S. Constitution that would transform its character from one governing the consent of the governed to one governing by the force of the Supreme Sword of the federal government? What was it about the nature of the constitution that carried with it serious risk in its implementation? And indeed it was risky, for why would the form of government be considered an experiment if the risks (now and the future) would not seriously jeopardize freedom? If the potential abuses were not serious in nature and scope, then there would be no need in describing the form of government as an experiment.  In short, the EXPERIMENT was the attempt to form distinct parallel lines of powers to the State governments and Federal government with respect to their separate delegations; to allow “two sovereigns” to “occupy” the same territory over the same people; and to entrust each representative in those governments to stay within its own sphere of delegation; to allow for a standing military in the hands of the federal government and a militia army of the people in the hands of the States. This was the experiment in the world of political and social science: having two “sovereigns” with completely different purposes over the same people throughout different states with different interests. For many during that day, it was literally considered impossible; thus, the experimental nature of attempting to.  I submit, that while a good run was made of the experiment, the results of the test are in, and the experiment proves to have failed. I understand that it is hard for Americans to reach this conclusion for a variety of reasons, and this is not surprising, for as our founders said, “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” After a while, this disposition to suffer reaches the level of voluntary and consensual slavery. To avoid that treachery, freedom-loving Americans need to get over themselves and their substance-less pride and do what is right for freedom’s sake.  Do I love America? Absolutely. I love its history, legacy and heritage. I study it every day. But I love freedom more–freedom that I want to experience myself, not just read about in history books. I can assure you, however, I have no permanent affection towards forms of government. They are merely tools to reach an end, namely freedom. Government is our servant and we its master. When government becomes destructive to freedom, I have no qualms about abolishing the existing government and forming new government to secure what God has granted to me, my wife, my child, my family, my community and my body-politic.  Do I believe that the U.S. Constitution equates to freedom? Absolutely not; no more than I believe that a law acknowledging my right to defend myself grants me the right to blow a would-be rapist to smithereens if he were to attempt to hurt my wife and child. I believe what human history proves, that a constitution is only one of the measures in society to protect freedom; that a “constitution may happen to be free, and the [citizen] not” (Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press) 183); and that a constitution can become practically useless in restraining government. I believe that constitutions should be formed and re-formed by a body-politic as they deem it necessary to protect themselves.  I do not understand the mentality of those shallow-thinking citizens who have the bumper sticker approach to government, “Support America. Be American!” as if to say, resistance to government or abolishing government contradicts our patriotic duty and is un-American. To the contrary, doing your patriotic duty means being ever vigilant and honest in your evaluation of political and societal conditions. It means being liberal-minded (not in the political-party sense) in our approach to government, and if necessary, instituting new forms.  Is it so surprising that the societal and political changes over 250 years would completely change the character and nature of a union and the application of the “Supreme Law of the Land”? The union and the U.S. Constitution were actually bound for deconstruction, just as all governments are and all political unions that attempt to be perpetual. That the Tower-of-Babel-mentality can be successful mocks common sense and historical proof. Human nature does not allow it. The form of government of the U.S. Constitution was an experiment, admittedly not destined to live forever, for as soon as society’s character and nature change, so does the constitution governing those people.  Do you think that the philosophy, beliefs, cultures and morals of a people can substantially change but the “Supreme Law of the Land” remain the same as to those completely different people in completely different times and circumstances? Get real. Justice Joseph Story, one of the most nationalistic-minded of the founding generation, admits the same thing. Concerning the inevitable fall of the political experiment, the U.S. Constitution, he says,  “[T]he fabric [of the constitution] may fall; for the work of man is perishable. Nay, it must fall, if there be not the vital spirit in the people, which can alone nourish, sustain, and direct, all its movements.” (Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the United States Constitution, (New York, NY, Harper and Brother, 1868 reprinted), 100-101.)  This “vital spirit” of freedom has so long been absent in this country and in such a shortage of knowledge, virtue and energy that to suggest freedom can be restored in America through the current union and form of government calls into question the judgment of those who honestly hold that opinion.  Does this mean that freedom cannot be restored in America? Absolutely not. Freedom can be restored and it will, but only in those places where the people believe in and practice independence, honesty and self-government enough to part with the federal government that has filled the gap of the people’s irresponsibility and lust for comfort and money with tyranny and oppression.  Does the U.S. Constitution contain good principles? It sure does. It contains principles that had been accepted through political enlightened thought for centuries, just as the British Constitution did. Yet, despite containing good principles, the founding generation believed that constitutions notwithstanding, there comes a time when to remain in a political association shirks our duty to God and man.  Do I believe the U.S. Constitution is perfect? Absolutely not. Neither did the founders as they said they were only forming a “more perfect union,” in anticipation that their posterity (and even current generation) would retain the priority of their virtue, morals and good faith. This description of the U.S. Constitution necessarily means that there could be a better constitution; a better form of government; and an even more perfect union. But such a “better” government will not be obtained by keeping a union so large with a constitution that “grants” to the federal government plenary power to govern hundreds of millions of people for the supposed “general welfare” of “all” and to pass any and all laws “necessary and proper” in the “pursuance” of (e.g. “living constitution”) such ends; and where the people in the States have lost virtually all control over internal polity and interest in the name of the “Supreme Law of the Land” imposed upon us since Chief Justice John Marshall rendered his opinions in the early 1800s.  I propose this truth: a constitution is to be judged by its practical merits and revealing experience and not upon some indeterminable “intent” of what the “founding fathers meant.” Moreover, I ask, which founding fathers? The ones that preferred a monarchical form of government and believed the U.S. Constitution to be a consolidating effect upon the people as one body-politic? The ones that believed that Great Britain’s form of government was the best in the world and should be replicated here and who thought the U.S. Constitution was a stepping-stone to that end? The ones that imposed nationalistic practices in the federal government even during the first term of the United States’ first president? Hoping for a return to “what the founders intended” is chasing a moving shadow and ignores the reality of what this union has become “in pursuance of” the U.S. Constitution, all the intentions in the world notwithstanding.  You may argue that those nationalistic-supremacy ideas were not the ones accepted by the founding fathers (which ones?), yet history proves that the federal government has reached its current status largely with the consent of all three federal branches throughout the past two centuries, in the authority of the U.S. Constitution, even from the very beginning. Has the constitution stopped this power crave and expansion? Do you think that the U.S. Supreme Court Judges have not put good reasoning to their opinions when they analyze the constitutional powers granted to the federal government? Are they all just a bunch of idiots or conspiratorial maniacs, or has the constitution not adequately maintained the lines of parallel power between people and federal government and between State government and federal government, that being the very core of this constitutional experiment?  The federal government even fought a Civil War against fellow Americans to retain this “constitutional” Nationalistic Supremacy over the people of the States to govern themselves, all under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution’s effect to this national-supremacy-end has only intensified since then and gotten progressively worse. If it took over two hundred years to get to this point, which you may perceive as constitutional degradation, how long do you think it would take to get back to 1787-intent using the same constitution that has empowered the federal government during those 200-plus years? Let us shed these illusions based merely in the wishing and not in the reality.  America’s founding generation told their posterity that this form of government was an EXPERIMENT. Like them, we should recognize the reality that one day new forms of government would need to be instituted for freedom’s sake, just as they showed us in the Declaration of Independence, which cited not the English Constitution as a basis of their right to live freely, but the Natural Laws of God. These laws are based upon the principles self-preservation, -defense, -improvement and -government. We, their posterity, must make similar decisions, using their good example, to secure freedom for ourselves and our posterity. May we endeavor to experiment in freedom once again.

You can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a church in Mecca

I am so sick and tired of the double standards in this country.  I am sick and tired of having to bow down and kiss some group's posterior because they are a so called "minority."  Since when does being a minority mean that the majority of people has to give a damn what you think, want, or say?  Now I know I have some one's attention.  "Aha, Robby is a bigot, I just knew it!," is what some of you who are reading this post are now thinking.  To you I say you need to get informed.  Just what am I talking about?  Allow me to explain.  How many of you folks remember September 11, 2001?  What were you doing when you first heard about the attacks?  How did you respond?  Imagine back then of someone told you that a group of Muslims lead by a radical imam would want to build a mosque at the ground zero site in New York on say...September the 12?  (for those of you who may need a reminder it was not nineteen Southern Baptists or Catholics who hijacked three planes and killed more than three thousand people by playing kamikaze)?  Here we are nine years out and that is just what we are now facing.  The groups building the mosque paid $4.85 million for the property.  The building itself was damaged during the attacks on September the 11th and construction costs are expected to run around $100 million dollars.  Now that in and of itself raises a question as to just where is all this money coming from?  We have part of the answer.  The Dutch government is actually financing part of the project.  Read about that nugget here.Mayor Bloomburg of New York City doesn't seem to care and says that folks like me questioning this project are promoting religious intolerance.  So be it.  I am asking and looking for answers to questions as I am writing this article.  I hope you will join me in the search as well.  Take a look at the wikipedea link here.  Then we have to talk about the imam himself, one Feisal Abdul Rauf who says that the United States was an accessory to the crime and has stated he wishes the United States was more Sharia compliant.  I say to hell with that.  This nation is built on Christian law and if Mister Rauf wants to live according to Sharia law he is more than welcome to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Listen the point is that Ground Zero is holy ground.  Thousands of our countrymen died there and if followers of Islam want to build a mosque there in the name of building briges and making amends then I'm all for it...as long as Christians can build churches in Mecca and other Islamic cities.  Fair is fair.  Read more about the good imam here.

Thank God for Michael Savage

In this brave new age of tolerance and diversity someone would never be condemned because of an opinion.  Never.  Trust me.  As a society we are taught the values of acceptance of views and cultures different then what we grew up with.Now, if you believe that crap I have a bridge I want to sell you in San Fransisco, home of the greatest media personality alive today, Doctor Michael Savage.  Doctor Savage is a dose of fresh air in this otherwise polluted and watered down age of so-called "conservative" media and commentary.  In a brave and enlightened age such as our own where every opinion is to be heard out and respected that does not apply to the traditional standard.  What do I mean?  Allow me to explain it to you. Doctor Savage believes in a few simple things like I do, such as:

• Marriage between one man and one woman
• Borders, Language, Culture are the building blocks of any nation
• Holds that the Second Amendment is an individual right
• Supports the English Only Movement
• Holds both political parties are corrupt (hello Scott Brown)
• States the fact that Islam is the enemy of the United States
• Stands up to CAIR and other Islamic groups that mean harm to traditional American values

I have a link to Doctor Savage's website on my links section and I hope you check his page out.  You will find news there that is hard to find and very relevant to the days we now live in.  The views that Doctor Savage have are so controversial that he is banned from entering Great Britain.  Read that again.  This man has committed no crime whatsoever.  He hasn't robbed anyone, killed anyone, or slandered anyone.  For standing for traditional values and having the balls to tell the truth he is banned for his opinion!  So much for tolerance.  I ask the readers of this site to do a few easy things. 

1. Go to his website and read about him yourself.  The link is listed on my link section.
2. Listen to the man on the radio and YouTube
3. Buy his book Banned in Britain

This man deserves our support and that being said this writer is glad to give it.  Listen to him, and if you agree our country can't survive without Borders, Language, Culture , believe that marriage is between a man and a woman then I beg you to offer him your support as well.  God bless Michael Savage!

Where is the conservative media?

Have you ever heard of Cedra Crenshaw? If not, don't be surprised most people haven't. Why is that? Here is a link to her website http://www.cedracrenshaw.com/. I encourage the people who read this blog to pass the word about this young woman and to send her emails of support. If you live in her district in Illinois I recommend you vote for her. Now, you are probably wondering just why I'm involving myself in this race at all. The answer is because the Chicago machine is doing its best to not even allow Mrs. Crenshaw to be on the ballot. I find it ironic that the left is always preaching to us about diversity. According to them it is folks like me who are on the right who are intolerant bigots with the closed minds. What hypocrites they are! I guess that if you are a black woman who is a conservative there is no room for you. Where is the NAACP? The Southern Poverty Law Center? Isn't the fact that the powers that be in Chicago are doing everything they can to keep a black woman off the ballot a racist act? Well, is it? If Illinois was dominated by Republicans that would be the charge levied. Why do the folks in the left fear her so much? Could it be because she is a black woman who supports the Second Amendment? Balanced budgets? Budget cuts? Folks this is the kind of candidate we need to support! Now here is the rub. The Will County Electoral Board voted along party lines to remove Mrs. Crenshaw from the ballot in November. What an outrage! If you know folks who live in Illinois email the information about this woman to them. If you live in this district then contact the board and raise holy hell. That is the only language these slime balls understand. Pass the word about this wonderful woman and maybe together we can defeat the Chicago Machine.

Pride and shame in America

This last week I found two under reported stories that touched my heart and I'd like to share them with you now. The first story is about a homeless man who noticed an American flag that had been blown down during a storm. This man, reportedly named Gustus Bozarth doesn't have what we take for granted. He doesn't have a roof over his head. He doesn't have a comfortable climate controlled room to relax in while he surfs the 'net or watches TV in a recliner. His home is on the street under the hot Texas sun. I found out about this man while looking on YouTube and I'd rather talk about Mr. Bozarth than those idiot Black Panthers. How many of us, myself included, gripe and complain and bemoan the unfairness of life while living in this great (for now admittedly) country? I talk about patriotism on this blog. Mr. Bozarth lived it. During a storm a flag was blown down. Watch what he does. This video moved me and I have to admit I was teared up by it. Would I have done what he did? I honestly don't know. I stand in awe of Mr. Bozarth and with God's help I'll reach the level of love for this country that he already has. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxeAyW6yI28 He folds those flags with as much love and respect as he could. Would I have done what he did if I had seen those flags on the ground? I know not. And that admission fills me with shame. God bless you Mr. Bozarth. I found the story reported. It had been buried and it is a shame, this story needs to live on. Take a moment and read the story. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/07/people-search-way-donate-homeless-man-saves-flag/?test=latestnews

The second great American I want to talk to you about is Pastor Ron Baity. He is the pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Pastor Baity is a hero of the faith and deserves the support in ways of tithes and offerings because when he ended his prayer in the House of Represenatives in North Carolina he did a terrible and controversial thing: he ended his prayer in Jesus' name. North Carolina is one of those Bible belt states, you know the states with a church on every corner and as red (as in Republican) as you can get. And a pastor gets the shaft because he dared to pray in Jesus' name. Where is the outrage? Where are those proud Republican Christians? The silence tells the story. Most churches in America today are as dead as a tomb. The Moral Majority has no strength left, its political might has been all but spent. Jesus was crucified before by the Romans at the behest of Jewish religious leaders who feared Him. Now he is being crucified by apostate and cowardly Christians at the alter of political correctness and self deception. Thank God that Pastor Baity is made of sterner stuff. America we need more men like Pastor Baity and Mr. Bozarth. To the people of North Carolina in particular, if you belong to one of those social club churches who compromises the Gospel of Christ I urge you to support Pastor Baity with your tithes and let your own pastors know if they don't grow a spine you will no longer support him. If we as Americans don't support true American patriots like these two men then we have no right to complain about what we get. All evil needs to get stronger is for good people to stay silent. Now you have a choice to make. What will you do? Read about these sad events in North Carolina here. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/pastor-yanked-capitol-jesus-prayer/?test=latestnews. See an interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bRY7yJ0QA

No civil rights protection for whites

As some of you might know, back in 2008 there was a group of New Black Panthers who were actively intimidating voters in a polling place in Philadelphia. For the most part this story has been totally ignored by the news media. Now, allow me to paint you a picture. What would the response have been if there were a couple of Klansman or Neo-Nazis brandishing weapons at a voting place and claiming to be "security?" You and I both know the police and media response would have been overwhelming. I've done some looking and found the actual video on election day of when these events took place.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBVxP5wzCY
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A&feature=related
• When Mister Shabazz the chairman of the NBPP party was interviewed as to why armed members of his group were there he said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BemSmTNDxU&feature=related. Isn't it interesting how there is no cellphone video or reports from poll watchers about this happening?

You can see the man with the nightstick in the first video STANDING IN FRONT OF THE DOOR for God's sake and the people watching the polls didn't seem to mind that. Now, watch what happens when the reporter goes up there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqk8kDK6Z0&feature=related. I guess they don't mind Black Panthers with nightsticks standing at the door but reporters are truly dangerous and need to move. What an outrage.

Now, I know some of y'all are probably thinking why am I even writing about this. Let me tell you. The vote is the cornerstone of our republic. It is our voice. Most countries in the world (North Korea, China, Cube for example) do not allow the vote. Dictators don't allow the vote. Look at what happened in Iran last year with its elections. Reports from anywhere between eighty and over two hundred protesters were killed because a election was rigged and they had the gall to stand up against it. Let me be clear. I do not care who you are, if you are an intimidating factor at a voting place you have crossed the line and it is a civil rights violation. So the Department of Justice will take care of this problem right? We will get to that in a bit. First lets learn some about the New Black Panther Party. Here is the link to the groups website. Read the statement and then you will get an idea of what this group is all about. http://www.newblackpanther.com/intro.html

The argument on the website is that the man with the nightstick was suspended for his roll for a time (he is once again a member of the party) and that as an organisation the NBPP holds zero liability. That is a bunch of hogwash. I am a member of the NRA. If I was wearing NRA garb and tried the garbage that this guy did the NRA would be in just as much trouble as ( rightfully so I might add ) be in. And after getting kicked out of the NRA I highly doubt they'd let me back in. The Panther was not kicked out, he was suspended and according to the statement on the website is once again a full member. Nice huh? Here is some background on the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party

Now to the Department of Justice. Incredibly, the DoJ has decided NOT to bring charges against the NBPP for civil rights violations (i.e. voter intimidation) siting no evidence despite videos from cell phones and Fox News showing a man with a nightstick in front of the doors of the voting area. Take a look at this interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BemSmTNDxU&feature=related. To this writer, it seems that if you are white you can not be the victim of a civil rights violation brought about by a minority. If this is indeed true then there is corruption in one of our most powerful departments and it must be stamped out.