D-Day Rally Speech

by admin
Filed under News

Comments Off

D-Day (demand day) Rally at the Capital
Speech given by Cindy Redburn
March 26, 2009

I am honored to represent the Constitution Party of Missouri today. I am a founding member of the party and I serve as State Secretary. I also was privileged to represent the Constitution Party as their 3rd Congressional District candidate for Congress in 2008.

I would like to mention a few things that distinguishes the Constitution Party from other parties. One, you will find our members greatest loyalty is to the Constitution rather than the party, and secondly, unique to our party is the fact that all thirty-nine planks of our platform are linked to an authorizing statement in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration confirming that our positions are constitutional. But perhaps the best way to clearly and quickly define our party is to share our mission statement with you.

The goal of the Constitution Party of Missouri is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty and the return to constitutional government by means of educational and political activity, and through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates, who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Promoting and defending the principles of individual liberty and returning to constitutional government is the driving force behind everything we do in the Constitution Party of Missouri. We are here today because this rally is centered around the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution – amendments, which embody the principle of state sovereignty. This principle of state sovereignty is rooted in the historical fact that the states created the national government and gave it few and defined powers, and those powers are clearly enumerated in Article 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution. That’s it, nineteen delegated powers from the states to the federal government. Anything else the national government does to interfere or intervene in state government is a direct violation of the Constitution.
Our party platform includes a plank on state sovereignty, and the sixth principle of the seven principle of the Constitution Party is State Sovereignty. I would like to read part of that plank to you.

The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution delegated few, enumerated powers to the Federal Government, reserving all remaining powers to the States and the people. Thus, powers of the Federal were the exception.

Our federal republic was created by joint action of the several states. It has been gradually perverted into a socialist machine for federal control in the domestic affairs of the states.
The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, and health care, ad infinitum.

We call upon the states to reclaim their legitimate role in federal affairs and legislation (See Amendment 10 United States Constitution) and thus cause the federal government to divest itself of operations not authorized by the Constitution and extract the federal government from such enterprises, whether or not they compete with private enterprise. The Constitution Party believes that state sovereignty is an important step in restoring the proper balance between state and federal governments.

I wish restoring proper roles of government was as simple as quoting amendments and party platform planks. However, we all know that it requires more than words to affect the necessary changes. Yet, if we expect to survive as a nation, we must return to the place, where the Constitution is honored once again by our elected officials as the supreme law of the land.

“How will that happen? What will it take?” Is a question that has been on my mind and heart for years and I’m sure on the hearts of many here today. And for the first time in years I am filled with hope that we may actually be seeing an answer to the questions. In fact, there is a part in the Declaration of Independence that eludes to the very nature of what I see happening,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

This is the place we find ourselves today. We have had a history of repeated injuries and usurpations and the shenanigans of Wall Street bankers, the Federal Reserve, Congress and both Presidents Obama and Bush have heaped insult upon injury. Their outrageous behavior has brought thousands of people together in a way that no one could have planned.

Protests, tea parties and meet-up groups are gathering all across the nation, and when you made the decision to be here today, you also became part of this movement to reign in a rogue government.

And lest you think I am unduly harsh in using such a word to describe our government, let me define “rogue” for you. The dictionary defines rogue as “a dishonest and unprincipled person” and a second definition further states a rogue is “a person or thing that is defective or unpredictable. I have no trouble applying all of those adjectives to our government, for it has truly acted in a dishonest, unprincipled manner and has become defective and unpredictable in it’s efforts to solve the very problems it created at the expense of the taxpayers.

Furthermore, we know that rogues do not, without an outside force acting upon them, change their ways. That is what you have become today, an outside force being applied, when you say to your state legislator, “You know, I believe the Constitution of the United States limits the authority of the federal government, and I want you, my state government to get off the federal welfare rolls, and start acting as a sovereign state that does not exist by the good graces of Washington.”

And let me repeat, this is just a start. You cannot leave here today, thinking, “Well, I’ve done my duty! No, that won’t cut it.” This is just the beginning of a long, hard fight. Can you imagine where we would be today if the signers of the Declaration would have just signed and went home to take their ease?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. If you think you can do any less, then you are not cut out for the battle. Yes, this battle is not to the faint of heart, but to those, as one of my favorite lines from the song America the Beautiful states, those “who more than self their country loved”. Battles are won by those who have that level of commitment.

What is your commitment level?
Will you commit to educating yourself in the ideas of liberty and the principles of constitutional government?
Will you then use that knowledge to hold your elected officials accountable to oath of office?
Will you be willing to replace those who violate the Constitution?
Will you be willing to even run for office yourself to assure a choice for candidates, who will obey the Constitution?

The Constitution Party is committed to restoring constitutional government that guarantees individual liberty to all. We are committed to make the necessary sacrifices to insure that our posterity will enjoy the blessing of liberty. We invite you to join us in this worthy and honorable cause.

Tags:

Missouri Scraps MIAC Report

by admin
Filed under News

Comments Off

by Chuck Baldwin
March 27, 2009

Well, there is still hope for liberty after all! After multiple thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes, and other communications from outraged citizens, the State of Missouri has rescinded its controversial “militia” report. This proves the point I made in this column recently that the most effective way to fight an ever-encroaching federal leviathan is to focus on our individual states.

Let me review the events of the last few weeks so as to help readers familiarize themselves with this historic–and I do mean historic–episode.

On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri, via its Department of Public Safety, issued what was called “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement.” In this report, people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly were referenced as being connected to potentially dangerous “militia members.” But the inference did not stop there. People of conservative ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.

Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding “conservative” or “right-wing” philosophies were identified in the MIAC report.

The MIAC report was categorized as “Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive,” meaning the report was intended for law enforcement personnel only. Fortunately, an unidentified (for obvious reasons) Missouri law enforcement officer, who was extremely disturbed by this report, sent a copy to nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones. Of course, Jones immediately “blew the whistle” on the story. This was on March 11.

On March 14, the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune ran a story on the subject, and on March 17, I wrote my first column about it. From that point, the story went viral.

Internet sites, radio talk show hosts, and bloggers all over America picked up the story, and thousands of outraged citizens began bombarding the appropriate officials in Missouri with protests. Even Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck ran a feature on the story on Friday, March 20, and again on Monday, March 23. The Constitution Party issued a “Travel Advisory” for the State of Missouri, warning tourists and residents about the possibility of being profiled by State Police for such things as having bumper stickers with political statements on their vehicles, etc. All of this commotion was not lost on several Missouri State legislators and executive officers, either.

Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon (who had previously stood by and defended the MIAC report) to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report. In addition, several Missouri State legislators said they would introduce an amendment to the Department of Public Safety’s budget barring the agency from using “state or federal funds for political profiling.”

On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent an apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, “I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations.”

While Ron, Bob, and I appreciated the apology and retraction from Mr. Britt, the overriding offense of the report still lingered: namely, the report, with a very broad brush, linked people holding conservative political opinions to dangerous and violence-prone “militias,” which Missouri law enforcement personnel were instructed to be on guard against. Therefore, public outcry against the MIAC report continued, Mr. Britt’s apology notwithstanding.

Then, on Wednesday, March 25, the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to “permanently cease distribution” of this abysmal report. Keathley said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed.

Keathley also noted that the report was filled with numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not cite any sources for its broad statements about “right-wing” militias. He further said that his department would now review how the MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers. He said the process “needs improvement.”

Dear readers, please take a bow! Because of tens of thousands of patriotic, freedom-loving Americans–including thousands of courageous Missourians–the long arm of totalitarianism was shortened just a bit.

This sordid story is truly an embarrassment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State of Missouri. Governor Nixon, especially, is left with egg on his face for foolishly and stupidly standing behind the report, when he had either never read it, or, if he had, was just as guilty of political profiling as the ones who wrote the report.

Why DHS, you ask? Because the MIAC report is similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies courtesy of DHS-sponsored “Fusion Centers.” There is another side of this story that is even more sinister, however.

If we can continue to probe the details of the MIAC report, I am absolutely convinced we will find that this report actually originates with Morris Dees and his ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. And if my hunch (a very educated hunch, I might add) is correct, it means that the DHS and various State police agencies around the country are allowing a left-wing special interest group to use them to harass, intimidate, and profile people with conservative political opinions.

I would further proffer that those of us who are outraged by this event should not stop with the MIAC report being removed. While this is very good news, the fear and intimidation associated with those referenced in this report has already taken place. Are people opposed to abortion, illegal immigration, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., now afraid to express their opinions publicly (especially in Missouri)? If so, this seems to me to be the basis for legal action, based on the abridgment of the First Amendment freedom of speech by a State (and perhaps federal) law enforcement agency.

There is yet another chilling question that must be answered: by saying Missouri State Police will “review” how MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers, does Col. Keathley mean that the State of Missouri’s law enforcement agencies will continue to promote similar reports, but simply make them “Classified”? In other words, will they (and other State police agencies around the country) simply employ greater secrecy when issuing such reports, but do nothing to change the content of future reports? Hopefully not, but we shall see.

With that said, here are the lessons all of us need to take to heart:

*Every police officer, deputy sheriff, and law enforcement officer in America who believes in constitutional government, individual liberty, and the Bill of Rights needs to be alert for any report that smacks of the MIAC report, and be willing to quickly “blow the whistle” on any such report they see.

*Lovers of freedom should be much encouraged to see what can happen when they are willing to stand up to their State governing officials as they see abridgements to their liberties taking place. I say again, the best way to fight these mushrooming despotic tendencies of government we seem to see everywhere is to focus on our State governments. Do you now see why I say that? Even if DHS was behind the MIAC report, it was the State of Missouri that had to implement it; and it was the State of Missouri that (under pressure) killed it.

See my column on this important subject at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090320.html

*Notice, too, that we did not need the major media to achieve this victory. We cut off this one branch of the tyranny tree without the help of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX NEWS (with the exception of Glenn Beck), or even the Drudge Report. Victory was achieved with the weapons of talk radio, syndicated Internet columns, Internet blogging, local news media, and word of mouth.

You see, folks, we can achieve victory without the major media. But we must stay focused and actively involved in our respective State governments. “We the people” are still the power of this country. And don’t let anyone deceive you into believing anything else. Therefore, take heart in knowing that your diligence convinced the State of Missouri to rescind its atrocious MIAC report. Now, don’t let it stop there. Let’s faithfully cut off the tentacles of tyranny wherever we find them. Amen?

P.S. To see a handy web page with much material relevant to the MIAC fiasco, go here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/MIACreport.html

P.P.S. Remember, we will be live-streaming my Sunday morning message again this Sunday, March 29, at approximately 10:30 am (Central Daylight Time). Use this url:

http://crossroadbaptist.net/live.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090327.html

Tags:

States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention

by admin
Filed under News

Comments Off

by Chuck Baldwin
March 20, 2009

It seems that most everyone focuses his or her attention on what is happening in Washington, D.C. People don’t seem to get excited about politics until a national election rolls around or unless the President makes some startling announcement. Even well-meaning Christian leaders seem to spend the vast majority of their time dealing with policies that emanate from Washington, D.C. Already, I’m hearing leaders of the so-called Religious Right talk gushingly about who the next Presidential nominee of the Republican Party will be. Who cares? Do you mean to tell me that with all we have to deal with right now, we can’t find anything else to talk about? How shallow–and utterly ineffective–can we be?

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

If the principles of freedom and independence have any chance of surviving the next few years, it will be because individual States have the courage to pick up the banner and fight. Therefore, freedom lovers need to focus their energy and attention more on State government and less on national politics.

For example, the State of Missouri is right now profiling supporters of independent Presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as being potential “domestic terrorists.” In addition, Missouri law enforcement personnel are being told that people who oppose things such as abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, the Federal Reserve, the North American Union, etc., are potential “terrorists.”

See my original exposé on this story here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090317.html

Remember, this report is being sanctioned by Missouri Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, the Missouri Highway Patrol, and the Department of Public Safety. In other words, the State of Missouri is officially endorsing the distorted statements, repulsive innuendoes, false accusations, and unwarranted warnings contained in this report. Whether the content of the report originated with the federal Department of Homeland Security or even with a private left-wing organization such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is the State of Missouri that is putting boots on the ground on behalf of this ridiculous report.

That is the way it always is: no matter what happens in Washington, D.C., it is the individual State that (for the most part) is left holding the bag. Unfortunately, it seems that most State legislators and governors have forgotten that it is their responsibility to protect the liberties and freedoms of their citizens, and have been unwilling to hold the line for State sovereignty and independence. Instead, they have allowed the federal government to run roughshod over not only the U.S. Constitution, but also their own State constitutions and authority. In fact, one might be able to say that most States seem to think that Washington, D.C., is some kind of glorified Pied Piper, which they must always follow like blind sheep. This is not the kind of union our founders envisioned.

States were always viewed as being the final arbiters of their own destinies and decisions. Had America’s Founding Fathers intended on Washington, D.C., being some sort of universal authority, the individual States would have all terminated when the Constitution was adopted in 1787. In other words, what Washington, D.C., thinks or wants means diddly-squat unless the State decides to go along with it.

Whether the issue is gun control, or environmental “protection,” or smoke-free facilities, or land use codes, or police departments profiling potential “terrorists,” or any other issue that the federal government wants to get its grubby little fingers into, it is the individual State that must choose to say either Yea or Nay.

Therefore, the time has come for us to focus on the kinds of legislators, governors, sheriffs, judges, etc., who are leading our respective States. We must focus on holding our State officials accountable to the principles of freedom and constitutional government. The battle that is taking place in Missouri right now is a classic example.

Missouri residents by the hundreds and thousands need to get involved in that battle immediately. I understand Oklahoma and New Hampshire are deciding on terrific State sovereignty bills at this very moment. Residents of the Sooner State and Granite State need to barrage their State legislators in support of these bills right now. Montana is currently deliberating a couple of great bills. One would bring back gold and silver, and one is a major gun rights bill. Residents of Big Sky Country need to step up to the plate right now and let their legislators and governor know how important it is to pass these bills. I could go on and on.

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

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

P.S. Last Sunday, we began live-streaming my Sunday morning messages. I am sorry that our bandwidth was not sufficient to accommodate everyone who tried to watch us. I am told that this problem will be fixed by this Sunday. Therefore, I invite readers to join us online for my live-streamed message this Sunday, March 22, at approximately 10:30 a.m. (Central Daylight Time). Simply connect to the following url and follow the simple directions:

http://crossroadbaptist.net/live.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090320.html

Tags:

WHOSE LAND IS THIS?

by admin
Filed under News

We Can’t Get Enough Of What We Don’t Want

by admin
Filed under News

Comments Off

by Mary Starrett
Constitution Party Communications Director

Hand it to Obama, he sure gives a good speech. The silver tongued devil has an approval rating of 62% at the very same time 80% of those polled think things are going “badly” for the country.

It doesn’t make a bit of sense.

Neither does the recent poll that shows close to 60% believe government is the problem. Did this same 60% vote last time for incumbents or Washington insiders like Obama or McCain who agreed on issues more often than not? It would appear so. Why do American voters talk one way and vote another? We simply cannot get enough of that which we do not want. But, why?

We’re cowed into behaving as if we have no choice but to vote for those already in power. We’re convinced that we have to vote for incumbents 95% of the time even if we’re fuming over their voting records.

While Obama’s subjects are widely praising him after each speech, investors are registering their disapproval every time he opens his mouth.
The stock market tanked each time Obama stepped up to the mic to talk about his plans to “fix” the economy.

The day after the election the Dow dipped 5%. After the January 9th speech on why we must borrow and tax our way into debt via the $800 billion debt scheme called “Stimulus’, the stock market went down almost 2 %. Inauguration day saw a 4% drop and the day the market opened after the biggest check in history was signed, it tanked almost 4%.

By now you’ve read about the absurd spending in the ‘Stimulus’ package, you know about the tattoo-removal program, the dog parks in California and the Texas convention center.

One hefty pork product contained therein will dole out $7.2 billion to large telecommunications companies to provide internet broadband to rural areas.

That’s right. In addition to what you pay to have internet access you will be footing the bill so your friends in the country who are “underserved” can also get online faster.

Thing is, the big corporations have lobbied to keep the little ISP’s from getting a piece of the pork. So, instead of a tiny co-op getting grant money to expand broadband into an area with no access, Verizon lobbied a provision into the plan to make sure no “sole proprietors” are eligible! It’s business as usual in Washington where Obama has also paid back big labor and the teacher’s unions.

Broadband for those in the country is a good and worthwhile idea. I would especially like it because I live where only satellite internet gets me online-barring snow on the dish which sits perched on a corner of my roof. On those days if I can get out of my driveway I go to the library. A ‘hardship’ I do not expect my city neighbors to ameliorate because I chose to live on heavily forested moutaintop.

Like dog parks and convention centers, the Constitution does not permit our government to take money from one group to provide for another. It does not allow for domestic federal aid. We are being asked to assume the risk that those who live rurally should assume for themselves.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Americans were asked to assume the risk (again) for those who chose to live below sea level in a city sunk between a lake and the ocean. That socialization of risk has become so accepted that we’re no longer questioning it. If people want to contribute to flood-torn areas they should be all means do so, but money for flood victims or those with no high speed internet access is not, as Congressman Davy Crockett heard a constituent tell him- “Not yours to give.”

Tags:

Stop Gun Control Now Or Lose Your Rights Later.

by admin
Filed under Video

Comments Off

Don’t make the same mistake that the English and the Australians did. They sat idle and lost their rights to own guns, now they protest when its too late. Hr 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 has been proposed in the House of Representatives here in America. Start fighting it now. Don’t wait.

Tags:

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

by admin
Filed under News

Comments Off

By Chuck Baldwin
March 3, 2009

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist. Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.’”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090303.html

Tags: