"Statism" is the worship of the State, the belief that the machinery of civil government can bring salvation. Is Chuck Baldwin a statist? You be the judge:
Anger With Federal Government Not Enough
by Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2009
The Title of this article might lead us to think that what we need is anger with state and local governments as well. But noooo.
I'm old enough to remember when giving the Panama Canal away was opposed by virtually everyone outside the Beltway. It changed nothing. Jimmy Carter and Congress gave it away, anyway. Most people oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So what? Our troops are not only still there, but more are on the way. Most people believe children should be allowed to pray and read the Bible in school. So what? They still are forbidden from doing so. Most people believed former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had the right to post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. So what? He was forced to take them down, anyway (and removed from office in the process). I could go on, but you get the point.
As a card-carrying "Theocrat," I agree that nobody who signed the Constitution intended to give the federal government power to remove the Ten Commandments from all public buildings.
Washington, D.C., is too far gone to salvage. Admit it! Washington is a cesspool, a landfill, and a putrid pond of corruption and duplicity. Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party will ever allow a principled constitutionalist to become its Presidential nominee. No matter whom we elect as President, the beat toward Big-Government socialism and one-world internationalism will go on without interruption. Big Government scalawags own the entire federal system, including Big Media, Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion, and Big Special Interest Groups. They are all feeding at the government teat.
We should abolish the federal government entirely. Just like the Declaration of Independence says we have a duty to do under conditions like these.
Therefore, it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties. And, as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! And awakening to this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.
Anybody who says any branch or any party or any level of government "defends liberty" doesn't understand the core of the American vision. True Americans believe that "the Government" is the greatest threat to liberty.
America's Founding Fathers believed that the institution of "civil government" was a necessity, even one commanded by God. Creating "the government" was thus an act of religious obedience. But they misread the Bible. They were products of their time.
Still, they recognized the danger of the State, and the Constitution is evidence of this. They believed they needed "checks and balances," "separation of powers," and a Bill of Rights to guard against the greatest threat to our liberties: government itself.
Government does not DEFEND our liberties!
Government is the ENEMY of Liberty.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution defend our liberties AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
If we had more State legislators such as Washington State's Matthew Shea; Georgia's Bobby Franklin; Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer; New Hampshire's Dan Itse; Michigan's Paul Opsommer; Oklahoma's Randy Brogdon, Sally Kern and Charles Key; Montana's Rick Jore, Greg Hinkle, and Joel Boniek; Tennessee's Susan Lynn; South Carolina's Michael Pitts and Lee Bright; Missouri's Jim Guest and Cynthia Davis; and sheriffs such as South Carolina's Ray Nash, Arizona's Richard Mack and Joe Arpaio, Montana's Jay Printz and Shane Harrington, etc., it wouldn't matter what those nincompoops inside the Beltway do. The federal government cannot violate your rights and steal your freedoms without the consent and approbation of your State government.
"Nincompoops" don't frighten me as much as fascists.
I have to admit I don't know all these politicians. But I have read some horrifying things about a few of them. Sheriff Arpaio for one. Please see this link:
Please see that link.
Although I agree with Chuck Baldwin on the issue of the Ten Commandments, I disagree with him on the issues of immigration and the War on Drugs. Libertarians should be terrified by people like Arpaio and other state-level conservatives who are willing to use massive violence and military power to stop drug-users and day-laborers.
And while I agree that the federal government did not have constitutional authority to de- segregate the South, the State-level politicians who used violence against blacks were thugs, and dangerous threats to EVERYONE's liberties, and unconstitutional federal intervention may have brought about the most libertarian result.
Is Baldwin moving us ahead to a libertarian future, or taking us back to the pre-Civil Rights south?
If conservatives/constitutionalists/libertarians would spend as much time and energy influencing elections and policies at the State and local levels as they attempt to do at the national level, we could turn this floundering ship of state around. If he had the support and backing of his State's legislature and sheriffs, imagine what ONE constitutionalist governor could do. I get goose bumps thinking about it!
Me too, especially after reading that link above
Read that link.
Imagine a State with its own financial system--its own currency, banks, regulatory agencies, etc.
Government should not have a monopoly on money or banking. At any level.
Imagine a State with its own militia--under the authority of the governor only--completely independent from any responsibility to the President or federal government.
And me powerless to file in federal court to protect my Constitutional rights. (Yes, I know, I oppose 14th Amendment incorporation.)
Imagine a State with an education system unfettered by the federal Department of Education.
I believe in the separation of school and state.
Imagine a State where the BLM, the FBI, the ATF, and the DEA had to actually submit to State law.
Or worse, could be deployed by Sheriff Arpaio! See the photos of local military hardware in that link.
Imagine a State with its own health care system.
Libertarians believe in the separation of medicine and state.
Imagine a State with no FEMA--UNLESS INVITED IN.
I don't know, for some reason I feel safer with the power 2,000 miles away rather than right next-door.
Imagine a State that would not allow Washington's spooks to unlawfully spy on law-abiding citizens.
Imagine a county or state that does the spying.
Imagine a "Neighborhood Watch" against YOU!
Welcome to Communist China's village "elders."
Imagine a State that actually had a say in how much land the federal government could claim for its own.
And claimed the land instead of the feds.
Susette Kelo's home was seized by state/local authorities.
Imagine a State where citizens never had to worry about a national ID act.
And only had to worry about a STATE ID act.
And laws which changed every time you crossed a state border.
Imagine a State that would protect the right of its citizens to freely express their faith in the public square.
The State does not protect our rights!!!
The State is the greatest THREAT to our rights.
And I guess the thing that bugs me most, speaking as a perennial candidate for U.S. Congress, is Baldwin's idea of getting voters to vote for state-local politicians like Arpaio, when they still for for Republicrats and Demoblicans, and not for anarchists like ME! What progress is made with lots of Little Caesars on the local level, and voters who still vote for Roy Blunt's successor on the federal level? How can we expect voters to take action locally if they won't also take action on the federal level? Baldwin seems to be in some kind of unrealistic dream land.
Belief that local is more sanctified than federal is like believing Republicans are less dangerous than Democrats.
All of this--and more--is attainable with a constitutionalist State government committed to protecting the liberties of its citizens.
By "Constitutionalist," Baldwin means "anti-drugs," "anti-immigrant," and Pro-AUTHORITAH!
I repeat: freedom in America has only one hope: the resurrection of State independence and sovereignty.
State-level or local tyranny is no better than federal tyranny.
Freedom has only one hope: the death of the myth of the moral legitimacy of "the State." The death of the myth that people wearing uniforms or carrying badges have the right to use violence -- to confiscate wealth, impede movement, kidnap, or kill.
Only libertarians are offering that vision. (At least they should be.)
In the US Constitution, our Founding Fathers sagaciously reserved to State governments their independence and sovereignty, knowing that they had the awesome responsibility of being the last (and greatest) vanguard of liberty for the American people.
This is mythology. The Federal Founders did not omnipotently grant sovereignty to the states; the states would not relinquish it to the new federal government -- and it was often guarded for nefarious reasons. Some states had practices which were as tyrannical as George III. The Federal Framers couldn't do anything about this. Many Framers of the Constitution were disappointed they could not even do anything about slavery itself. Open, notorious human traffic in several states!
The states were never given "the awesome responsibility" of being the greatest "vanguard of liberty."
No level of government is the "vanguard of liberty!"
Government is the enemy of liberty.
At every level.
They never intended or imagined that the states would ever become a doormat for the central government (which is what most of them have become).
Will Americans now become the doormat of sadistic Sheriffs and corrupt, power-hungry state-level politicians?
The whole idea of "the government" -- whether at the federal, state, or local level -- is the enemy.
"Constitutionalists" are simply substituting one form of tyranny for another.