Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: where is the honest and open discussion?

By Diane Rufino

When the original 13 states came together to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederacy, at the urging of Benjamin Franklin ("Join or Die"), they did so with a great deal of hope, but also a great deal of trepidation. The hope was that a federal government might be formed that could provide greater security and stability to the colonies. The hope was that it might handle the few issues that were common to all the states but which could not be dealt with by the states individually. The fears, on the other hand, were that this government might come to gain an enormous amount of power; that this power might come to be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole might end up overreaching its authority and end up meddling in affairs that ought rightly to be left to the states and the various local governments (if not individuals themselves).

The Constitution created a limited government, which is evidenced in four obvious ways: (1) The Constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be split between three separate branches – each acting as a check-and-balance on the power of the others; (2) The power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas; (3) Government power structure was split between two co-equal sovereigns – the individual states and the federal government (emphasized or restated by the Tenth Amendment); and (4) A Bill of Rights ("further declaratory statements and restrictive clauses to prevent the government from misconstruing or abusing its powers..") to put further limitations on government power.

For 200 years, this structure has been eroded, always at the hand of the federal government. After numerous overt acts of usurpation, constitutional amendments, and loose interpretations of the Constitution itself, each of the branches of government has managed to seize more power than it was ever meant to have. Now, as we see and feel most acutely, the federal government involves itself in matters that are neither federal in nature nor are subject to its jurisdiction. It insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of public and private life, including political, economic, and social. When we listen to a young mother in Alabama cry because the new healthcare mandate has increased her insurance premiums each month by over $100 and has presented her with a dilemma that is causing her great heartache and distress (she wants to work and do the right thing, but if she does, she can't afford the increase in healthcare premiums, and so she is faced with the choice that puts and her family on welfare), then we understand how destructive the government has become and how far it has strayed from its intended purpose.

Those who support Nullification have put the alert out years ago. They assert that the federal government can rightfully be divested of such unconstitutional power by having the States call the government out on its conduct and refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. But Nullification is not a term or a concept that the average American has heard before and so it has not been roundly embraced. But it is catching on finally. In fact, support is growing exponentially. As more and more people (Thomas Woods and Mike Church, for example) and groups (The Tenth Amendment Center) educate those who are willing to listen, audiences are finding that it makes sense and is indeed a constitutional and viable remedy.

And then there are others, such as famed radio personality, Mark Levin, who advocate for a different approach. Mr. Levin recently wrote a book entitled "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic," in which he proposes what he believes is the ONLY viable solution to restoring constitutional governance, which is an Article V State Convention.

In his book, Mr. Levin writes:
I undertook this project not because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite – that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan. The Statists have been successful in their century-long march to disfigure mangle the constitutional order and undo the social compact. To disclaim the Statists' campaign and aims is to imprudently ignore the inventions and schemes hatched and promoted openly by their philosophers, experts, and academics, and the coercive application of their designs on the citizenry by a delusional governing elite. Their handiwork is omnipresent, for all to see – a centralized and consolidated government with a ubiquitous network of laws and rules actively suppressing individual initiative, self-interest, and success in the name of the greater good and on behalf of the larger community. The nation has entered an age of post-constitutional soft tyranny...

Unlike the modern Statist, who defies, ignores, or rewrites the Constitution for the purpose of evasion, I propose that we, the people, take a closer look at the Constitution for our preservation. The Constitution itself provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe in Article V. Article V sets for the two processes for amending the Constitution, the second of which I have emphasized in italics:

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...."

Importantly, in neither case does the Article V amendment process provide for a constitutional convention. The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures for a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would thereafter also require a three-fourths ratification vote by the states, has been tried in the past but without success. Today it sits dormant.

The fact is that Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to rebalance the constitutional structure for the purpose of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too powerful, as many delegates in Philadelphia and the state conventions had worried it might. [Levin, pp. 1-13]
Levin then goes on to propose a set of eleven (11) Amendments – which he terms "Liberty Amendments" – that an Article V Convention might want to propose in order to rebalance the government (the creature created by the Constitution): These proposed Amendments include: (1) term limits for members of Congress; (2) the election of Senators to be returned to state legislatures; (3) term limits for Supreme Court Justices (and the opportunity for federal and state legislatures to override Supreme Court decisions with a supermajority); (4) limits on federal spending (with an eye to curbing federal debt); (5) limits on taxation; (6) limits on how much power Congress can delegate to the federal bureaucracy; (7) limiting the federal government from interfering with economic activity that does not pertain to interstate or international trade; (8) requiring the government to compensate property owners for the devaluation of property caused by regulations; (9) allowing the states to amend the constitution directly (without having to go through Congress); (10) granting states the right to overturn the laws and regulations of Congress with a supermajority; and (11) requiring voters to produce photo identification at election booths.

Notice that Mr. Levin writes that "in neither case does the Article V amendment process provide for a constitutional convention." Why would he include that statement? Both conservatives and liberals have routinely referred to an Article V "Convention for proposing Amendments" as a "Constitutional Convention" or Con-Con for well over 30 years, and likely much longer. Is it possible that they ALL have mistakenly assumed that the words "constitutional convention" are found in Article V? Is it possible the government itself is also mistaken? When the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on November 29, 1979, regarding the role of Congress in calling an Article V convention, the official name of the hearing as published by the Government Printing Office in a 1,372-page document was "Constitutional Convention Procedures." This hearing was held because the number of states petitioning Congress to hold an Article V convention to propose a balanced budget amendment was rapidly approaching the necessary 34 states.

And what about the "populist lovefest," better known as the Harvard Conference on the Constitutional Convention, held at Harvard on September 24-25, 2011, which was cosponsored by the Harvard Law School and (surprisingly) by the Tea Party Patriots as well? Of course, Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments" hadn't been published yet, so the people at Harvard and the Tea Party Patriots didn't realize that they were using a forbidden phrase, "constitutional convention," to refer to an Article V convention.

Perhaps it's worthwhile to take a look at that Conference and watch videos of the various panel discussions to understand why holding a constitutional convention could open Pandora's Box. The host of the Conference, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig, and the moderator of the Closing Panel, Richard Parker, both committed populists, advocated for greater democracy in our country. They believe more and more issues should be decided by popular vote. (Parker can trace his political history back to the 1960s organization, Students for a Democratic Society). They believe that holding an Article V constitutional convention will help get them where they want to go.

Perhaps the reason Levin wants to deny the validity of the phrase "constitutional convention" is that one of the most persuasive arguments against holding such a convention is based on the contention, the criticism, and indeed the fear that such a convention could become a "runaway" convention based either on the inherent nature of "constitutional conventions" or on what transpired at our original "Constitutional Convention" in 1787.

How is it that Mr. Levin is convinced that an Article V convention could never become a "runaway" convention? On page 15 of his book he writes: "I was originally skeptical of amending the Constitution by the state convention process. I fretted it could turn into a runaway convention process.... However, today I am a confident and enthusiastic advocate for the process. The text of Article V makes clear that there is a serious check in place. Whether the product of Congress or a convention, a proposed amendment has no effect at all unless 'ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof...' This should extinguish anxiety that the state convention process could hijack the Constitution."

So, in this excerpt, Levin admits that he shares the concerns of others that an Article V convention could turn into a "runaway convention." Yet he is confident that he has overcome those concerns with his belief that "Article V makes clear that there is a serious check in place," namely the requirement of ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states. There are several reasons why Levin should not be so assured that this is a "serious check" in place to stop a runaway convention. Larry Greenley points these reasons out in his article, "Levin's Risky Proposal: A Constitutional Convention":

First, the "ratification by three-fourths of the States" requirement of Article V already has failed to prevent undesirable amendments from being ratified. Consider the 16th Amendment (the federal income tax), the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators), and the 18th Amendment (prohibition). All three were ratified by at least three-fourths of the states, but most constitutionalists would likely agree that all three were bad amendments and should not have been ratified. In particular, many constitutionalists think that changing the method of choosing U.S. senators from appointment by state legislatures to direct election by the voters in each state as provided by the 17th Amendment has been extremely damaging to our constitutional republic. James Madison spoke ever so strongly for this important design feature at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, in his rebuttal of Patrick Henry who accused the Constitution of potentially granting too much power to the federal government. "The deliberations of the members of the Federal House of Representatives, will be directed to the interests of the people of America. As to the other branch, the Senators will be appointed by the State Legislatures, and secures AN ABSOLUTE DEPENDENCE OF THE FORMER ON THE LATTER." The Senate was a direct "federal" element within the very design of the federal government. Its power to refuse to approve a legislative act of the House that is against the reserved powers and interests of States is precisely what the doctrine of Nullification provides.

Second, it is hard to predict just how much pressure the American public can put on state legislators or state convention delegates to get some future undesirable amendment or amendments ratified by the three-fourths rule. We all know what happens when big money and special interests groups send out their tentacles. When big money, special interest groups, and political power pour in to try to influence the delegate-selection process and the convention business itself, the people lose their voice. Experience has shown that we can't trust public servants once they go behind closed doors. We saw what happened with the healthcare bill.

Third, it is quite possible that an Article V constitutional convention would specify some new method of ratification for its proposed amendments. After all, our original Constitutional Convention in 1787, an important precedent for any future constitutional convention, changed the ratification procedure for the new Constitution from the unanimous approval of all 13 state legislatures required by the Articles of Confederation to the approval by 9 state conventions in Article VII of the new Constitution.

But for those who are not quite comforted by Levin's argument that Article V provides the very means to control its convention, he offers still another method to ease our concerns about a runaway convention. On page 16, he quotes from Robert G. Natelson, a former professor of law at the University of Montana: "[An Article V] convention for proposing amendments is a federal convention; it is a creature of the states or, more specifically, of the state legislatures. And it is a limited-purpose convention. It is not designed to set up an entirely new constitution or a new form of government." Too many others, including notable intellectuals, constitutional scholars, and even former US Supreme Court justices beg to disagree on this point.

Many constitutionalists will also agree that Levin is encouraging Americans to play with fire by promoting a constitutional convention. Just because the Constitution authorizes Article V conventions to amend the Constitution doesn't mean that it would be wise at this time in our nation's history to call one.

While pro-Article V convention enthusiasts tell us that this is a great time for an Article V convention because the Republican Party controls 26 of the 50 state legislatures (the Democrats control 18, five are split, and one is non-partisan), and therefore could surely block the ratification of any harmful amendments proposed by an Article V convention, they are omitting from this analysis that very many of the Republican state legislators are not constitutionalists, and could end up in alliance with Democrats to ratify some harmful amendments. Not to mention the likelihood that constitutionalists would be in the minority at the convention for proposing amendments itself.

There is no doubt that Mr. Levin has done his homework with respect to the Article V Convention. But it is clear from the strong and sometimes rabid response to his book that he has not made the case strong enough to quell the legitimate fears of many who believe such a Convention is akin to opening a can of worms. I use the expression because it means: "something that (often unexpectedly) sets in motion that which has unanticipated and wide-reaching consequences." Or as TN Tenth Amendment Center leader Michael Lotfi puts it: "An Article V constitutional convention of the states is not the right answer; it is the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution." Knowing that the Nullification movement is gaining momentum, Levin made it a point, in promoting his book, to try to discredit the "rightful remedy" of Jefferson and the "duty of the states" approach of Madison. He did not do it in a civil, educated manner but rather resorted to referring to Nullification as "idiocy" and Nullifers as "kooks." I imagine that if Thomas Jefferson were listening to Mark Levin's assertion of how to address a government that willingly and defiantly passes unconstitutional laws, he would think he was a "kook."

I would also think that Jefferson would conclude that people who think narrowly, as Levin does in his book and in his commentary to promote his book (including the rejection of nullification) are incapable of saving a republic that is on the brink of imploding.

The only object upon which the Constitution acts is the federal government. It is its playbook; it defines its jurisdiction. It is also its restraining order. Yet each time the government did not wish to be confined by it, it used one of the three branches (most notably the Supreme Court) to reinterpret it and enlarge government powers, regardless that the ONLY way the government can rightfully be altered is by amendments (Article V). The point is that the government has refused to adhere to the limitations set forth in the Constitution.... the limitations that the States demanded and relied upon when debating and deciding whether to relinquish some of their sovereign power and ratify the compact that formed the government. So here is Levin's solution: Even though the Constitution clearly defines the government's powers and sets forth limitations, and even though the government has repeatedly and systematically refused to adhere to those limitations, he believes the only way to limit the government going forward is to make the States go through a series of hurdles (Article V's requirements) in order to try to add a new set of restrictive amendments. Levin himself has pointed out that such a State Convention may not successfully happen and even if it does, it may take up to 20 years or more add such amendments. We can predict what will happen. The government will ignore them or quickly find a way to erode them or get around them. There is no guarantee that the amendments will restore the proper balance of power in government. According to Levin, the parties who have been the victims of the government's usurpations, the States and the People themselves (the rightful depositories or reservations of sovereign power) – have no other recourse or remedy except to take their slim chances with an Article V State Convention, a remedy that has NEVER been used before and hence has no proven record of success. In other words, the States and the People MUST abide strictly by the provisions of the Constitution when the federal government has never done so. Levin stands by his proposition even though the people of the states already have the extra-constitutional right to convene a constitutional convention by virtue of the Declaration of Independence. That's exactly what the Philadelphia Convention was... an exercise of this right (which is referred to as the Theory of Popular Sovereignty), because the Articles of Confederation created a so-called "perpetual Union."

Article XIII of the Articles read: "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State..... And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."

The Theory of Popular Sovereignty wasn't just the design of men like Thomas Jefferson (VA), John Adams (MA), Benjamin Franklin (PA), Roger Sherman (CT) and Robert R. Livingston (NY), the committee appointed on June 11, 1776 by the Continental Congress to draft the Declaration of Independence, it was indeed a consensus notion among the whole of our Founding Fathers. Consider for example what Edmund Pendleton, president of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, said to the delegates on June 5, 1788:
We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then?... Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument.
Although there are some ambiguities in this passage, Pendleton appears to be assuring the delegates that if the Constitution turned out not to secure happiness for Americans, then it could be reformed by the "easy and quiet" methods of Article V. However, if the Article V process were to be subverted by "our servants," the state and federal legislators, then We the People (the sovereign people) would assemble in convention, wholly recall and reform the delegated powers of the Constitution, and punish the offending servants.

Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg addressed the topic of a Constitutional Convention with skeptism back in 1986. He wrote:
As we look forward to celebrating the bicentennial of the Constitution, a few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"

I would respond by saying that one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention at the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.

A constitutional convention could lead to sharp confrontations between Congress and the states. For example, Congress may frustrate the states by treating some state convention applications as invalid, or by insisting on particular parliamentary rules for a convention, or by mandating a restricted convention agenda. If a convention did run away, Congress might decline to forward to the states for ratification those proposed amendments not within the convention's original mandate.

History has established that the Philadelphia Convention was a success, but it cannot be denied that it broke every restraint intended to limit its power and agenda. Logic therefore compels one conclusion: Any claim that the Congress could, by statute, limit a convention's agenda is pure speculation, and any attempt at limiting the agenda would almost certainly be unenforceable. It would create a sense of security where none exists, and it would project a false image of unity.

Opposition to a constitutional convention at this point in our history does not indicate a distrust of the American public, but in fact recognizes the potential for mischief. We have all read about the various plans being considered for Constitutional change. Could this nation tolerate the simultaneous consideration of a parliamentary system, returning to the gold standard, gun control, ERA, school prayer, abortion vs. right to life and anti-public interest laws?

As individuals, we may well disagree on the merits of particular issues that would likely be proposed as amendments to the Constitution; however, it is my firm belief that no single issue or combination of issues is so important as to warrant jeopardizing our constitutional system of governance at this point of our history, particularly since Congress and the Supreme Court are empowered to deal with these matters.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, recognized the perils inherent in a second constitutional convention when he said an Article V national convention would "give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already heated too many men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all of these circumstances, it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention which assembled under every propitious (promising) circumstance, I would tremble for the result of a second."

Let's turn away from this risky business of a convention, and focus on the enduring inspiration of our Constitution.

The bicentennial should be an occasion of celebrating that magnificent document. It is our basic law; our inspiration and hope, the opinion of our minds and spirit; it is our defense and protection, our teacher and our continuous example in the quest for equality, dignity and opportunity for all people in this nation. It is an instrument of practical and viable government and a declaration of faith – faith in the spirit of liberty and freedom.
Constitutional attorney Publius Huldah also rejects the Article V Convention as the effective means to restore our country to its intended constitutional republic. She takes the position that as the rightful depositories of government power are the Individuals and resistance to tyranny is not only a natural right but a duty. She therefore supports the rightful remedy of Nullification to enforce obedience to the Constitution. She writes, in her articleMark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, Not Amendments!, that the Oath of Office, addressed in Article VI, last clause, requires both federal and state officials to support and defend the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to – ie, to nullify! – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. "This is how they "support" the Constitution!" As to Mr. Levin's assertion that an Article V Convention is the proper, safe, and legal mechanism to restore constitutional limitations to a government historically unwilling to abide by them, she argues that while he admitted (on pg. 15 of the book) that the process has the potential to turn into a "runaway" convention, he never successfully explained why Article V can effectively prevent that from happening.

Publius writes: "The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false. To persist in those claims – or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually and morally indefensible. Instead, they continue to tell us that what we need is a "convention of the States" to propose amendments to the Constitution, and that this is the only way out. They tell us, the only way to deal with a federal government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution is to amend the Constitution! Do you see how silly that is?"

Michael Lotfi, the Associate Director of the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center, wrote an excellent article comparing the Article V State Convention remedy of Mark Levin to Nullification, the remedy of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (collectively, the authors of all our foundational documents, except the Articles of Confederation). The article is entitled: Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Why Levin is Wrong. (See prior post on this NC TAC site). He wrote: "Calling for a convention to amend the Constitution with amendments shows absence in sound judgment." Further, he wrote: "Levin proposes an Article V constitutional convention of the states as salvation. Not only is an Article V constitutional convention not the right answer, it is the bullet to a loaded revolver pointed at the Constitution."

Lotfi talks about some of the unconstitutional laws, agencies, and actions that the government has imposed over the years – "the NSA, NDAA, ObamaCare, the Patriot Act, EPA, DOE, every war since the 1940s, federal gun laws, etc. These laws and agencies all fly in the face of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments." He asks how a process that potentially may take as long as 20 years but more likely won't work at all will address these gross usurpations. We must not forget that these amendments were adopted as EXPRESS limitations on the federal government. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains it best: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

How is it that the government can find a way to limit the effect of the first ten amendments when those amendments were intended to limit the government and keep those particular objects OFF LIMITS with respect to the federal government?

Mr. Lotfi gives a wonderful explanation of the legitimacy of Nullification. He writes:
The powers delegated to Congress are few and defined. The Tenth Amendment provides explicit validation for nullification, "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" (emphasis added).

In regards to nullification, does the Constitution delegate this power to the federal government? It obviously does not. Does the Constitution explicitly prohibit nullification? It does not. It can now easily be concluded that nullification is a power reserved for the people of their respective states.

The Ninth Amendment expounds even further the right to nullification. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Jefferson explained that nullification was a natural right belonging to the people and their respective states. Because the Constitution does not expressly prohibit nullification, the federal government cannot deny or disparage this natural right of the people.
Just as so many intellectuals have requested that Mark Levin stop the name-calling and have an intellectual, honest, and dignified debate on the topic of Nullification, Mr. Lotfi has done the same. He ends his article with this message: "Levin is perhaps the most appreciated and admired political talk show host in America. Rightfully so, he has earned his accolades. However, with such clout comes an incredible responsibility to not only seek truth, but to display the humility and courage to admit when you are wrong."

Mr. Lotfi hit the nail on the head in his article with respect to Nullification. He addressed what I believe is the most powerful of the opponent's arguments – Madison's remarks following the Nullification crisis of 1832. Most are too uneducated or too shallow in their willingness to read more than a page of history and so they just don't get that Madison was trying to explain that the particular situation wasn't one that can be rightfully addressed by nullification. Nullification, at its core, requires an act by the federal government that exceeds the powers delegated to it under the Constitution. Congress rightfully has the power to legislate regarding tariffs. The Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 (tariffs of abomination) were within Congress's rightful exercise of power. And so nullification was not the proper or rightful remedy to challenge it or to assert as the basis for non-compliance. The real argument was the one that Calhoun originally made, which rested on the Compact Nature of the States. He claimed that when the States came together and drafted the Constitution and then ratified it, they were guided by the concept of social compact. They agreed to give up some of their sovereign power (a "burden," in contract terms) in return for the understanding that the federal government so created (the creature) would be their "common agent" and would serve them equally (the "benefit," in contract terms). Even James Madison, and many of our other founders, acknowledged the compact nature of the Constitution. At the VA Ratifying Convention, Madison prefaced his speech with these words: "A Federal Government is formed for the PROTECTION of its individual members." Calhoun argued that under the compact nature of the Constitution, the common or federal government was supposed to serve all the states equally. The tariff, as you know, benefitted the North exclusively, at great detriment to the South. This unequal treatment of the Southern states is what really led to the secession of the Southern states – not the issue of slavery. Lincoln's election simply meant "more of the same."

Again, as Publius pointed out in her article Mark Levin Refuted: "The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false." The truth, as she brilliantly explains, is that resistance to tyranny is a natural right (the natural right to protect one's sovereign rights) and Nullification is the rightful tool of resistance. Just as resistance is a natural right, nullification is the natural remedy.

Publius is a scholar and is brilliant. Mark Levin is a scholar and is brilliant, as well. The most brilliant men of all are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and if you have any doubt of that, then you are all hypocrites for living under the very free society they secured for you. The difference between scholars like Publius and Mr. Levin is which view point they choose to endorse, given their extensive knowledge and understanding. Publius is a scholar of history and of original intent. She understands that the Constitution is not a stand-alone document but is grounded in the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and in the doctrine of Social Compact. She is an attorney. Mark Levin is also an attorney and understands history. Unfortunately, he has chosen to ignore some of the background that rounds out the understanding of our founding documents. As we are all aware, there are those who support Mark Levin and those who support those who endorse Nullification. I am troubled that someone as brilliant as Mark Levin can so cavalierly disregard Nullification and resort to the unsophisticated approach of calling those not in his camp a bunch of kooks. This truly troubles me because I believe scholars should be above that and try to promote their points of view through robust discussion and debate. That's how our Founding Fathers did it. And that was the climate at the Philadelphia Convention which produced the final design of our federal government. The one area that debate and discussion could not produce the just result was with respect to slavery. Georgia and South Carolina simply refused to go along if the concession wasn't made. Personally, I don't think one remedy is exclusive over the other; I think the sound approach is finding a way to REPEAL any amendment that increases the power of the federal government and destroys its original design (such as the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and parts of the Fourteenth amendments) while using NULLIFICATION to frustrate the enforcement of any unconstitutional federal law, policy, or court decision. I think the sound approach is recognizing the POWER that both approaches offer in limiting the power and reach of the federal government (outside its constitutional limits) and using them BOTH for the effective transfer of power back to the People. That's what it's all about, right??

And so, with this article, I want to ask all of you to please put the good of the country first and please find the untainted authorities to educate yourselves on Nullification. Jefferson and Madison are good starts – Read the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 and the Virginia Resolution of 1798, as well as Madison's Virginia's Report of 1800, but most importantly, read the circumstances under which Jefferson and Madison sought to re-assert the compact/founding principles of nullification.... the government was starting to trample on our Bill of Rights!!) Nullification is a good way to hold the federal government at bay while we figure out the best ways to divest the federal government of its liberty-killing powers. There are valid criticisms of an Article V Convention, and I advance that position with the others. If Mark Levin can PROMISE ABSOLUTELY that a group of state delegates can produce amendments that are clearly limited to transparent goals and which will LIMIT the government (and not in fact enlarge its powers, as some states seem inclined to do), then perhaps we should continue our discussion and debate on the Convention. But I don't think he can do so.

As Joe Wolveton II, JD writes: "Enforcing the Constitution and demanding that states stand up to their would-be federal overlords accomplishes the same goal as Levin's proposed con-con without putting the Constitution so close to the shredder that an Article V convention could become."

Mark Levin may have personal popularity, powerful friends in the media, the ability to shut down much of the criticism of his book, and a powerful bully pulpit in his radio show and his guest appearances on the top news outlet, but he doesn't have the same understanding of liberty and its preservation as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and our other Founding Fathers had.

Nullification must continue not only to be the remedy of choice, but of right.

"No matter the soothing words and the slate of scholars standing with Levin," Wolverton emphasizes: "the convention they're calling for would be beyond the control of the people or their representatives and could result in the proposal by the assembled delegates of potentially fatal and irreversible alterations to our Constitution that could very well end up being ratified."

References:

Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, New York, N.Y.: Threshold Editions, 2013, 272 pages, hardcover.

Arthur Goldberg (former US Supreme Court Justice), "Steer Clear of Constitutional Convention," Miami Herald, September 14, 1986.http://www.governamerica.com/issues/domestic-issues/21-constitutional-convention?start=10

Joe Wolverton II, JD, "Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity Calling for Con-Con, " The New American, August 22, 2013.http://www.governamerica.com/issues/domestic-issues/21-constitutional-convention?start=10

Larry Greenley, "Levin's Risky Proposal: A Constitutional Convention," The New American, October 27, 2013.http://www.governamerica.com/issues/domestic-issues/21-constitutional-convention?start=10

Michael Lotfi, "Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Why Levin is Wrong," The Washington Times, December 27, 2013.http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/american-millennial/2013/dec/27/nullification-vs-article-v-constitutional-conventi/

Publius Huldah, "Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, Not Amendments!."https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/

This Is What Is Going To Destroy The World’s Financial System

On the heels of some turbulent trading in key markets, today a 40-year market veteran sent King World News a powerful piece which exposes a public confession from insiders about what will destroy the world’s financial system. This is an extremely powerful piece from Robert Fitzwilson, founder of The Portola Group. Below is what he had to say in the following piece exclusively for King World News.

In yesterday’s article by Art Cashin, he references another article titled “Money Creation In The Modern Economy” written by employees of the Bank of England. We must admit that, like most economic treatises, it can be quite quite complex, but what was truly astonishing, and we should give credit to the Bank of England for this, was the public confession that money is loaned into creation....
Deposits are created as loans are made. The resulting “money” is referred to as “fountain pen” money meaning that the deposits against which checks are written are merely bookkeeping entries on the books matching the amount lent to the borrower.

They state that the way money is created is different than what is found in the description of “some economics textbooks.” How about different from what 99.9 percent of the normal people outside of the banking system believe when they refer to their account? It is not just a slight misunderstanding but really quite a monstrous fraud that has been perpetrated on savers and wealth holders in general.

Most account holders would also be shocked to know that they are merely unsecured lenders to the bank once an account is opened. The bank has no fiduciary duty as to how customer funds are invested. This has been settled law for almost two centuries. If the bank goes under, uninsured deposits are at risk. In the case of Cyprus even the insured deposits were at least partially forfeited for one bank’s customers. In the case of the other insolvent bank, all deposits were lost despite the insurance.

It also reads like propaganda or at best the work of well-meaning individuals completely insulated from the real world. As Art points out, the Bank of England's commentary says, “Prudential regulation also acts as a constraint on banks' activities in order to maintain the resilience of the financial system.” If that were so, how is it that the world’s banking system suffered cardiac arrest in 2008 from uncontrolled lending and speculation? If prudent regulation were in place, how did we wind up with “sub-prime,” “liar loans,” and the various packages of toxic loans sold to investors? One would think that the names of the loans would alert any prudent legislator or regulator to the great dangers involved.

Effective regulations on derivatives were removed at the end of the 1990s. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan allowed the banks in the mid-1990s to sidestep the rules on reserves by allowing banks to sweep the funds out of accounts at one minute to midnight. The required reserves would be computed, which not surprisingly came to zero as the balances also showed zero. The funds were then put back into the accounts after the calculations. Some tough regulation!

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. Limits on leverage were effectively repealed for Wall Street firms. Most transparency and efforts for regulation were neutralized or removed in not much more than a decade, all of which and more contributed to the global financial meltdown. Regulation was virtually non-existent.

The authors at the Bank of England contend that “quantitative easing” is a monetary tool for injecting money directly into the system. That sounds very professorial, but the truth is that QE is a mandate to maintain low interest rates and to fund out-of-control government deficits. There is no lack of money in the system. The more prudent heads of the Bank of Japan were essentially moved aside by the demands of the politicians. Whether that is true for all central banks or simply well-intentioned but completely misguided policies is impossible to say. But QE in some form is mandatory if the central planners want to avoid a chaotic and devastating meltdown of the global financial system.

The recent announcement about the success of the “stress tests” for the major U.S. financial institutions perfectly highlights the mindset of the central planners versus that of everyone else. While they proudly talk about how the financial system passes the stress tests with flying colors, no thought is given to the stress tests that individuals, families, small businesses, and retirees are undergoing every day. Millions are not succeeding. As we suggested earlier this week, the primary culprit is the de-facto bail-in given to the financial institutions by the confiscation of income through zero-interest-rate policies.

In closing, it is very interesting to us that one of the world’s major financial institutions would codify what others have reported. We now have a “member of the club” confirming what has been considered almost conspiratorial thinking. People should understand the implication of what the authors proudly disclose: Money cannot be trusted. What we all thought about saving money in the system is really just a very tenuous, depleting entry on a bank’s ledger. Holdings of this distorted form of money should be exchanged and maintained in real assets, even if there is no catastrophic event. The critical thing that KWN readers around the world must now understand is that over time money will be destroyed by the inflation inherent in the system. Save yourself, your family, and your life savings from this disastrous wealth destruction by owning hard assets such as gold and silver.

Institutionalized Tyranny

Institutionalized Tyranny
By Chuck Baldwin
March 27, 2014

This column is archived here.

What happens when an institution becomes more important than the cause for which the institution was formed? How long should people who believe in the cause remain loyal to such an institution? And at what point does loyalty to such an institution comprise an abandonment of the cause itself?

I’m afraid the majority of Americans have been institutionalized in a manner not unlike the way prisoners are institutionalized after a long period of confinement. After a point, a prisoner is so conditioned to accepting the circumstances of his confinement that, should he be released from confinement, he truly would be unable to cope. Such seems to be the mentality of a majority of us today.

Christians have been institutionalized. The reason and purpose of the church or Christian organization is no longer relevant. Generations have grown up reciting the same liturgies, regurgitating the same prayers, and rehearsing the same programs until the reason for it all doesn’t even matter. But take the institution away from them, and they would not be able to cope.

The Pharisees despised the Lord Jesus because He challenged the religious institutions that had come to govern people’s lives. I am convinced if Jesus came to America today, He would be just as despised by the vast majority of our religious leaders as He was by the Pharisees.

The Church that Jesus built in the Book of Acts owned no buildings, was indebted to no lenders, took no tax benefits from the civil government, had no denominational hierarchy, and identified itself with no ecclesiastical brand. And the Church was just as persecuted by the religious establishment as Christ was.

One of the reasons one may know that the modern church is so unlike Christ and the apostles is by the persecution that it never experiences. Just as the Pharisees were bosom buddies with the Roman Empire’s governing elite, so are our religious leaders today. Caesar was very generous in sharing the fruit of his tyrannically-extracted bounty with his allies in the Jewish Sanhedrin. And they were happy to return the favor by insisting that the Hebrew people submit to Caesar’s harsh rule over their lives.

The Pharisees also enjoyed a cozy relationship with the moneychangers. The moneychangers were descended from a long line of corrupt banking interests that dated all the way back to the Edomites. We are not talking about your friendly local banker here. These were highly organized, well-positioned money-manipulators. Jesus was so incensed with their manipulation and theft within in the Temple that he used physical violence to remove them from the property. He is recorded as doing this twice in the Gospel narratives. Note that after the second time in which it is recorded that He drove out the moneychangers (with a whip, no less), the Pharisees soon had Jesus crucified. There is no question that one of the reasons Pilate ordered Jesus to be scourged with a whip was in direct retaliation for the manner in which Jesus whipped the moneychangers. Remember, the moneychangers were from a very well-ensconced, elitist national (and even international) organization.

And lest you think all of this is irrelevant to today, the moneychangers are still very much with us. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and other members of the international banking elite, are the direct descendants of the moneychangers of Jesus’ day. And if you ever have an opportunity to ask one of them about it, they will proudly admit it.

Yes, the Pharisees institutionalized religion. This accomplished two things: 1) it helped enslave the people, 2) it helped make them rich. The institutionalized church is accomplishing much the same things today.

The establishment church is doing as much to enslave people as any other institution in the world. Our political institutions and educational institutions have nothing on the church for making good little subjects and serfs to the all-powerful state. And if you don’t think that a host of church leaders are not reaping the spoils from assisting our taskmasters, you’re not paying attention.

Many, if not most, of these big-name TV evangelists have as many houses and yachts and Swiss bank accounts as any big-name Hollywood actor or politician. In some cases, more. Most of these big-church pastors are bathing in luxury. Many of them take the kinds of vacations that only CEOs of the biggest corporations or presidents could afford. Do you really think that the IRS rules and regulations governing these non-profit corporations, called churches, really bother these church leaders? Get real!

No wonder all of these “successful” preachers are constantly teaching their congregations to always submit to the government. No wonder they have no interest in abandoning their 501c3 tax-exempt status. They are in the exact same position as were the Pharisees of old. And they are just as effective in helping to enslave people today as were the Pharisees.

The institution of the church--along with its programs, formalities, buildings, rituals, etc.,--has become more important than the purpose for which the church was created. Instead of preaching the liberating message of the Cross, which frees men from the fetters of sin--and that includes sinful political and financial fetters--the church is preaching a message of subjugation and enslavement. It is teaching people to submit to all kinds of oppression, including religious oppression.

Some of the most oppressed and subjugated people in the world are religious people. There are churches and Christian colleges that are every bit as tyrannical as anything coming out of East-bloc or Muslim countries. About the only thing missing is physical torture and execution. Spiritually, however, the oppression is the same.

How could real men who love the liberty they have in Christ allow themselves--and especially their wives--to be told how to dress, how to wear their hair, what kind of music to listen to, what kind of vacations to take, what restaurants they may or may not eat at, what forms of entertainment they may or may not participate in, etc., etc., ad infinitum?

I tell you the truth: many Christians in America are already slaves. To talk to them about freedom is a complete waste of time. The chains of tyranny are already clamped around their hearts. Why should it matter to them if chains are clamped around their necks? When they talk about “defending the faith,” they are talking about defending the institution. They are slaves to the institution. And the same is true for many unchurched Americans.

What is more important: liberty, or the government that is supposed to secure liberty? To a sizeable number of Americans today, it is more important to preserve the institution than the freedoms that the institution was created to protect.

Our Declaration of Independence states, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the God-given rights of life, liberty, etc.], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Did you see that: “any form of government”? ANY FORM. The form of government is only as good as its ability to secure liberty.

I hear a lot of politicians and media personalities talking about “American exceptionalism.” This is a potentially dangerous mindset. If one means that America is exceptional in our history and the manner in which our Constitution and Bill of Rights were established to protect liberty, well and good. But if it means that America has carte-blanche to do anything it wants--no matter how unconstitutional or tyrannical--because it is “exceptional,” it is a bunch of hooey.

What difference does it make if we have a 50-State Union or not? There is a bill in the California legislature that would divide that State into six states. Five counties in Western Maryland are trying to secede from Baltimore. Ten northern counties in Colorado are trying to secede from Denver. If a State refuses to secure the liberties of the people of that State, they have every right under God to separate. The State is not nearly as important as the liberties of the people within the State.

The spirit of secession is actually growing like wildfire all over the world. In recent history, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Kosovo all separated from Yugoslavia. Transnistria broke free from Moldova. Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought free from Georgia. The Slovaks seceded from Czechoslovakia. And now Crimea is separating from Ukraine.

To be sure, not every country that secedes from another country is motivated purely by the love of liberty. But for those of us in America, the issue that has propelled the desire to separate from one country or one State has always been liberty. It was the love of liberty that created the United States and that created the free and independent states of Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, and West Virginia--all of which seceded from existing U.S. states.

Furthermore, what difference does it make if Washington, D.C., is our federal capital, or, if say, Helena, Montana, would become the federal capital of a mountain state confederation of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Northern Colorado, eastern Washington and Oregon, the Dakotas, Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, and Alaska? Or if Austin was the federal capital of an independent Republic of Texas? Preserving some sort of political union (especially if it is a forced and coerced union) is not nearly as important as preserving liberty.

Again, it is not the political institution that is important. What is important is the liberty that the political institution is supposed to secure.

Many great minds in this country are already philosophizing over the possibility that secession is an idea whose time has come--again. A few years ago, Walter Williams wrote, “Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

“Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, control their legislatures and then issue a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776. You say, ‘Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person.’ That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right.

“Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally, and have strong economic ties with United States.

“The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?”

See William’s column here:

It's Time To Part Company

Hear! Hear!

In the eyes of God, marriage is the most sacred of all unions. It is far more sacred than any political union. If our Creator has authorized the separation of a husband and wife under certain circumstances in which one party violated the sacred terms of the holy contract (and He has), who among us has the audacity to say that political unions may not be abandoned when government commits political adultery by forsaking its oath to the people?

Again, are we more interested in preserving an institution or the liberty that the institution is supposed to secure?

As an institution, the Church at large is apostate. Yet, millions of Christians continue to prop up an institution that has abandoned the purpose for which it was created. They are more interested in preserving the forms and liturgies and tapestries and buildings of the institution. And, all the while, they are being spiritually enslaved by the very institution they are helping to prop up.

And as an institution, the U.S. federal government is apostate. Yet, millions of citizens continue to make excuses for it, justify it, and condone it. They are more interested in preserving the agencies and entities and power of the institution. Yet, all the while, they are being enslaved by the very institution they are helping to prop up.

What happens when an institution becomes more important than the cause for which the institution was formed? When the institution is civil government and the cause is liberty, tyranny is what happens.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

ANTI-FREEDOM PHYSICIANS, POLICEMAN AND PASTORS

By Chuck Baldwin
March 13, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

Unfortunately, a vast number of people who are charged with protecting our liberties are often the ones who are engaged in trying to take those liberties away. And the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as one of the most important (if not THE most important) liberties deserving protection. Without the people's right to keep and bear arms, all of the rest of the laws protecting our liberties are only words on a piece of paper. It is the armed citizenry that protects every liberty we cherish.

Obviously, every lawmaker (at any level) takes an oath to support, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the number of lawmakers who routinely do everything in their power to restrict or deny the people's constitutional right to keep and bear arms is quite large--especially on America's east and west coasts. Thankfully, over the past several years, lawmakers from gun-friendly states have been able fend off the attacks against our Second Amendment liberties. And lawmakers in "The Constitution State" are learning that the freedom-loving people of Connecticut are not going to be bullied out of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

According to several published reports, only about 15% of the gun owners in Connecticut have complied with the State's new law requiring them to either relinquish or register (for future confiscation) their semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. So, what will the State of Connecticut do now? To not comply with the new State law is a felony. Will the State of Connecticut seek to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of its citizens for failure to comply with the new gun ban? I would dare say that, if this happened, fellow citizens from all over America would descend on Connecticut to defend their fellow gun owners in a way not dissimilar from the gathering at the Concord Bridge in Massachusetts back in 1775. Does the State of Connecticut really want to start another American Revolution? We'll see.

Obviously, the majority of lawmakers in the State of Connecticut have abandoned their oath to the Constitution and have become the instrument of those forces that would take away the people's liberties. The same could be said for lawmakers in states such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California.

But it is not only lawmakers who are guilty of breaking their oaths to the Constitution and who are working against the people's right to keep and bear arms. It is an absolute fact that the vast majority of the mainstream media is vehemently anti-gun. The bias of the national media on this subject is documented beyond question. From sportscasters such as Bob Costas to talking heads such as Joe Scarborough to the vast majority of newscasters, commentators, editors, and pundits at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, ad infinitum, the barrage of attacks against the Second Amendment is ubiquitous.

Unfortunately, lawmakers and media personnel are not the only ones promoting an anti-Second Amendment position. Many physicians, police officers, and pastors often raise their power and influence against the sacred duty of armed self-defense, as well.

For example, Dr. Ben Carson, a man that I personally respect and admire for many reasons, has raised his voice against the right of people to keep and bear arms. When asked by Glenn Beck if people should be allowed to own semi-automatic rifles, Dr. Carson replied, "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." See the report here.

Obviously, that means Dr. Carson would prefer to disarm everyone who lives "in the midst of a lot of people," meaning any big city. If you add up the combined populations of the major cities in this country, it would total the vast majority of the U.S. population. Many major cities in America already have very strict gun control laws, which only serve to endanger the law-abiding citizens living in those cities. The fact is if anyone needs the right to keep AND BEAR arms, it is people who live in big cities. Violent crime rates absolutely prove it.

Now, Ben Carson the individual has the right to his opinion; but many people are touting Carson's name as a potential presidential candidate in 2016. For a president (America's Chief Executive charged with executing our laws, including the Second Amendment) to say, "I would rather you not have [a semi-automatic rifle]" is not acceptable--not in any shape, manner, or form.

Unfortunately, Dr. Carson is not the only physician who thinks this way. The American Medical Association (AMA) has a long history of advocating for gun control. See their official position supporting gun control.

Fortunately, the AMA does not speak for all physicians. The Association of American Physicians And Surgeons (AAPS) is very supportive of the Second Amendment--along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. I encourage readers to speak with their doctors about joining the AAPS. The current president of AAPS is Dr. Tom Kendall, Sr. He is a personal friend of mine. Here is the association's website.

President Obama's pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is also a high profile anti-Second Amendment crusader. Even the liberal Mail Online news site rightly points out Murthy's anti-gun activism. See the report here.

U.S Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is mounting a campaign to deny Dr. Murthy the position of U.S. Surgeon General. I encourage readers to support Senator Paul's campaign. See this report.

Sadly, physicians are not the only ones advocating for gun control; many police officers feel the same way. The State Police spokesman for Connecticut, Lt. Paul Vance, shouted over the phone at a citizen who had called to question how law enforcement personnel in Connecticut were going to enforce the newly-enacted gun ban by screaming, "I don't want to talk about the Constitution, Ma'am, at all, at all." When reminded by the caller that police officers were servants of the people, the lieutenant yelled, "I'm the master, Ma'am, I'm the master." See the report here.

It is an unfortunate reality that the attitude depicted by Lt. Vance is shared by thousands of police officers throughout the nation. The "us-versus-them" mentality seems to permeate law enforcement. And, of course, the "them" in question is the citizenry that policemen are supposed to serve. Examples of Gestapo-like tactics being employed by various police personnel are growing like wildfire. If you are not afraid to be illuminated by the truth, I challenge you to Google "police abuse" and see what comes up. But I caution you: what you will discover will shock and anger you.

More and more innocent people are being shot and killed by trigger-happy cops who have seemingly adopted a "shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later" philosophy. It is to the point that the American people need to seriously begin lobbying lawmakers and judges to severely restrict "no knock" arrest warrants and to begin severely punishing these rogue, out-of-control policemen. If something isn't done quickly, what is now rogue behavior will soon morph into routine behavior.

And, of course, I haven't even addressed the militarization of most all of America's law enforcement agencies, including county and municipal police agencies. More and more, our policemen and sheriff's deputies are looking like soldiers, not peace officers.

Not all of our policemen share this anti-Second Amendment, us-versus-them, "I'm the master" mentality. Thank God! Lawmen in states that heavily support the right of the people to keep and bear arms are mostly very gun-friendly. However, in larger cities and in states that are less gun-friendly, the trend in law enforcement is ominous.

Finally, another group of leaders who should be among the most supportive voices of our Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, is America's pastors. And, once again, the majority of these men seem to be either utterly indifferent to the Second Amendment or downright adamant in opposing it.

In rebuking a fellow pastor who decided to raffle a modified AR-15 rifle to his church congregation in upstate New York, Pastor Willie Bacote, of Missing Link AME Zion Church in Troy, said, "The fact a church would offer some type of weapon to anyone strikes me as ludicrous and goes against everything the Bible teaches. The only thing we're supposed to arm citizens with is the word of God, not guns." See the report here.

Believe me: Rev. Bacote speaks for a host of America's pastors--probably a majority. When President Obama and Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced their national gun ban bill last year, what did the vast majority of America's pastors do? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! They said nothing; they did nothing. If it was left up to them, the American people would have lost the right to keep and bear arms years ago.

Once again, I want to appeal to readers to purchase the book that my attorney son and I wrote entitled, "To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns." This is an in-depth scriptural study of the Biblical, Natural Law principle of the right and duty of self-defense. Order it here.

Had the Colonial pastors in 1775 and 1776 (and years before) shared the convictions of the majority of today's pastors, we would still be a subjugated colony of the British Crown. And that is a fact.

To me, no freedom-loving Christian who cherishes the liberties bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, including the right to keep and bear arms, should maintain fellowship with a church whose pastor will allow the members of his congregation to be stripped of their God-given right of self-defense. I would no more support a pastor who will not protect my right to keep and bear arms than I would support a politician who will not protect my right to keep and bear arms.


Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a critical juncture in our nation's history. It is time that those of us who truly love freedom stop supporting those men and women who are working--either positively or passively--for those forces that seek to strip us of our lawful means of self-defense.

We should cast no vote for any political candidate who will not defend the Second Amendment. I don't care what political party he or she represents. Unless it is a matter of life or death, we should not support a physician that would seek to deny us the right to keep and bear arms. We should be eternally vigilant against the growing propensity of policemen to become abusive and tyrannical by aggressively lobbying our elected representatives, mayors, governors, judges, etc., in demanding that our peace officers submit to the Constitution and show due respect to the citizens they serve. And we should not support those pastors and ministers who refuse to be a watchman on the wall for our God-given liberties--including the right to keep and bear arms.

If we are going to maintain our freedom, all must participate. And that means our civil magistrates, our doctors, our peace officers, and our pastors. And, yes, it means you and me, too.

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable - SHARE this urgent declaration

(NaturalNews) There is a destructive, delusional meme spreading like a virus among many misguided Americans. It pushes the idea that government can pick and choose which rights codified in the Bill of Rights it wishes to recognize or discard on any given day.

This delusion is predicated on the concept that if a popular majority can be emotionally whipped into a frenzy over one particular right, then that right can simply be discarded and stricken from the Bill of Rights.

But no such power exists to discard any portion of the Bill of Rights, at least not without proper ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states. There is no such power found solely in the federal government. There is no such power placed solely in the executive branch, nor in Congress, nor in the White House.

The Bill of Rights describes a set of individual rights and liberties which are not granted by government, but recognized as DIVINE rights given to use by our Creator. Because government never granted the rights in the first place, it has no authority to take them away.

"The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." - William J Brennan Jr.

The individual liberties described in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed, nor deleted, nor overridden by popular opinion... not even loudly screamed opinion. America is not a nation ruled by the tyranny of the mob. It isn't even a democracy -- it's a republic, where certain inalienable rights describe the protection of each individual, even if that individual is the lone voice of sanity in a majority gone mad. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from the tyranny of mob rule -- a phenomenon that routinely rears its head in any society where historical illiteracy is rampant and the masses are lulled into a state of complacency by charismatic but dishonest leaders.

It was the extended amendments attached to the Bill of Rights that outlawed slavery, guaranteeing individual freedom to those of African descent even in a time and place when the majority of voting citizens believed slavery was socially acceptable. And it was the Second Amendment that put firearms into the hands of those recently-freed slaves, ensuring that they could defend themselves against attackers of any color through the powerful expression of armed defense (aided by the laws of physics and certain materials from the table of elements, notably lead).

Another amendment beyond the Bill of Rights granted women equal voting rights in an age when the majority believed women should not be allowed to vote. It was the Bill of Rights that decriminalized prohibition, ending a dark era of mass criminalization of everyday citizens who suffered under the oppression of government law enforcement gone bad.

Yet today, incredibly, many African-Americans and women are actively assaulting the very document that first secured their own freedoms. They now wish to take their freedom and power and use it to enslave someone else by revoking other people's rights under the Bill of Rights. This is the ultimate social betrayal, and it is a powerful demonstration of the principle that those who do not respect freedom for others do not deserve it for themselves.

The Second Amendment is not negotiable
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- much like the Right of Free Speech -- is not negotiable. Its protections are not subject to the whims of majority opinion, nor the screaming demands of hyperventilating media personalities. All the social media trolls and opinion writers in the world can comment all they want on the Second Amendment, yet the individual right to keep and bear arms remains immutable.

Just like the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is not negotiable. No Governor, Senator or President has any power whatsoever to banish the Second Amendment, and any who attempt to oppose it only brand themselves as criminal traitors to the United States of America. Any active effort to eradicate the Second Amendment outside of law -- without going through the proper process of state ratification for Constitutional amendments -- is, by definition, an act of sedition against the United States of America and its people.

Ironically, many who viciously attack the Second Amendment do so by invoking their free speech protections under the First Amendment. Yet they seem blind to the realization that the First Amendment itself is only made possible by the Second Amendment which balances power between the People and the government, ensuring that the individual right to bear arms serves as a check and balance against the monopoly of violence every government inherently seeks.

Disarmament of the populace is always the first step to depriving them of their civil rights and human rights. Without the right to bear arms, there is no right to free speech, no right to due process, no right to trial by jury and certainly no right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure. A government with a monopoly of force is a government that respects no boundaries and honors no limits.

Grasping this point requires competent thinking, which is why so many who now flourish in America on the popularity of pop culture idiocy fail to understand it. It is intellectually lazy to blame gun rights for violence, requiring no depth of thought or reason. Only someone of higher awareness and possessing the aptitude for multi-layered thinking can realize the critical importance of distributed firepower instopping government violence against the People. As Ron Paul recently said, "Government security is just another kind of violence."

Ron Paul gets it. He understands that an imbalance of power in the hands of government inevitably leads to mass violence waged against the People. Those who are currently screaming for the population to be disarmed do not realize that in seeking to prevent one kind of violence (school shootings), they are unleashing a far more disastrous and horrifying violence by allowing the government to monopolize physical power over the citizens. This is a mistake that has been repeated throughout history, often at the cost of tens of millions of destroyed lives. Click here to watch my short video documentary that lays out these facts in more detail.

The Second Amendment was put in place precisely for the purpose of making sure that future Americans would not fall for the same mistake yet again. That's why it is the second highest amendment, right after the right of free speech, indicating its crucial priority in the enumeration of sacred rights that must be protected at all costs.

The Bill of Rights does not require your endorsement
The validity of the Bill of Rights does not require your endorsement. In fact, it encourages tolerance of those with whom you disagree.

If you do not believe in the freedom of speech for those with whom you disagree, then you do not believe in it at all (a derivation of a quote from Noam Chomsky). If you do not believe in freedom of speech, then you do not believe in the Bill of Rights. And if you do not believe in the Bill of Rights, then you are not, at heart, an American. You are something else, something less evolved. Something archaic and outmoded. The Bill of Rights is the single most important milestone in the history of civilized society because it lays out, with near perfection, the divine principle of INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties that come directly from the Creator rather than from a "King" -- also known as a dictator.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights lifted human civilization out of the tar sands of tyranny and into the enlightenment of liberty. It was divinely inspired and stands eternal as the key milestone of human compassion, justice and equality. To oppose the Bill of Rights is to oppose human progress. That's why the Bill of Rights is the single most progressive document that has ever been recognized by any nation.

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."- George Washington

Why the Bill of Rights extends through all time and innovation
Importantly, the rights described in the Bill of Rights extend through all time and cover all innovations and technological advances. It was not written to cover only those things that existed in 1791, but rather to serve as a template of liberty encompassing innovation, advancement and all future expressions of those rights, regardless of what devices or technologies may come into existence.

The Right to Free Speech, for example, does not merely protect speech written on scrolls or rolled out of a Gutenberg press. It covers all expressions of free speech, including speech expressed through devices that did not exist in the late 1700's: e-books, websites, blogs, television programs, bumper stickers and more. This very website, Natural News is a pure expression of the First Amendment. It would seem foolish and wrongheaded to argue that the First Amendment only applied to the printing press of the day and not to modern-day websites or e-books, yet that is exactly what many misguided people argue today when they say the Second Amendment only applies to "Muskets and bayonets."

The Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear the firearms of your time. What are the firearms of our time? AR-15 rifles. 308 sniper rifles. 50 caliber Barretts. 12-gauge shotguns. Handguns with night sights and high-capacity magazines. Your right to own, carry, buy, sell and transfer these items is as solidly safeguarded as your right to free speech. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable.


Those who oppose the Bill of Rights are enemies of America
Some misguided, if not treasonous, U.S. Senators, lawmakers and public servants in the executive branch of government currently suffer under the dangerous misconception that the Bill of Rights only exists because they allow it to. They foolishly believe that they can selectively pick and choose which rights to nullify via new legislation or by the stroke of an executive pen. This delusion is not merely wrong-headed and arrogant, it poses a grave threat to the Republic and all its future generations.

Enemies of the Bill of Rights are enemies of America. Whether those enemies be found in the media, in Congress, in the Oval Office or on the streets of America, they are unworthy of being called "Americans" at all. Those who despise liberty do not deserve liberty. Those who deliberately and maliciously attack the Bill of Rights do not deserve the protections of the Bill of Rights. Those who despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are publicly indicating they would prefer to live as subjects, not Citizens.

I propose that any who attempt to denounce Bill of Rights protections for others must first surrender their own rights and freedoms. Do not speak of taking away my Second Amendment rights while you enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Surrender all your rights and freedoms first,because only then have you achieved the necessary moral consistency from which you can demand others be deprived of their rights.

Relocate to North Korea, in other words, and become a subject of Kim Jong-un and then continue your assaults of the Bill of Rights as a Korean gulag blogger. Because only then will you know how much you have lost, and how much you should have valued the liberties you so carelessly abandoned.

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. If you oppose it, you betray not only yourself, but all Americans.

Please SHARE this urgent declaration. You have permission to re-post, with proper attribution.

Army Officer Wants You Disarmed: “We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers”

Within the upper echelons of our military there still remain men and women who are committed to the fundamental laws of the land. But assuming that all members of our military will be there to support the Constitution of the United States when our nation needs them most would be a mistake. Understand this: There are those within their ranks who would turn on their oaths and forcibly seize the very rights our Founders fought so hard to preserve without giving it a second thought. The following opinion piece, penned by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, shows in stark detail exactly what we’re dealing with and argues in no uncertain terms that the American public must be disarmed in order for the United States to survive. The ideas proposed by Lt. Col. Bateman in It’s Time to Talk About Guns and the Supreme Court are nothing short of shocking. This is coming from an active military commander, and though not officially sanctioned by the administration, his work is obviously a propaganda piece designed to give the gun grabber initiative direct support from military leadership. Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not “upset enough” over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following “Gun Plank” to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions: 1. The only guns permitted will be the following: a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these. b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid. c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place. 2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.) 3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs — or the jobs of some other cops — harder.) 4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year. 5. We will initiate a nationwide “buy-back” program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years. 6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good. Excerpted from Esquire Magazine via Sipsey Street Irregulars You won’t see the establishment media publishing arguments from top military leaders in support of the Second Amendment. Sadly, however, those who would take away our right to defend ourselves have been given a limitless platform to push their agenda to the masses. Hundreds of thousands of services members, both active and retired, have put their lives on the line to uphold those rights which have made our nation great. There’s no doubt that they will do so again when the need arises. But on the flip side of that coin are potentially hundreds of thousands of others who have no qualms about “just following orders.” A report earlier this year from well connected philanthropist Dr. Jim Garrow claims that there is a new litmus test for military leadership: I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed. Obviously, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman passed the test with flying colors. (Hattip SHTFplan contributor JustMe)

The Grand Chessboard of WWIII (Part Two)

America is busy fighting in Afghanistan and occupying Iraq. Crimea, a part of Ukraine, has been illegally seized by Russia. Obama has tried to engage Syria and Iran in a war in order to preserve the Petrodollar, but was outmaneuvered by Putin. To the average sheeple, the world is just one nasty conflict after another. To the rare American who has any knowledge of current events and can read a map, everything that is happening makes perfect sense. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAU) Like the mythical Phoenix, the old Soviet Union is attempting to rise out of the ashes. The EAU is a proposed economic union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. On November 18, 2011, the leaders of Belaurus, Kazakhstan and Russia signed an agreement, setting a target of establishing the Eurasian Union by 2015. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have expressed interest in joining as well as has Belarus’ neighbor to the immediate south, Ukraine. Isn’t it interesting that Georgia’s Prime Minister, Bidzina Ivanishvili, stated in September of 2013 that they were also examining the advantages of acceding to the EAU. Also in September of 2013, Armenia has announced its intention to join the EAU. This union cannot be allowed to happen by the West because it will tip the balance of power in the world. The Importance of the Ukraine Out of all the aforementioned countries, Ukraine is the most important piece of the EAU. They have a population of 46 million people, they have the largest economy in the region next to Russia and they have the second largest military consisting of nearly 130,000 soldiers as well as several private armies belonging to the Ukraine oligarchs. Ukraine possesses much modern military equipment and the province of the Crimea is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Without their naval bases in Crimea, the Russians would have a difficult time defending Syria from an American invasion. Eighty percent of Russian natural gas, supplied to Europe, flows through Ukraine. Of all the former Soviet Union states, Ukraine is far and away the most important. Without the EAU membership of Ukraine, there is no reconstituted Soviet Union (i.e. EAU). Western fifth column provocateurs have wreaked havoc in the region by causing discord in Georgia and in Ukraine. Although I am an American and do not want to see a reconstituted Soviet Union even if it means the central bankers remain in control because I would like to see the dollar survive a bit longer and I would like to have a way to pay my mortgage. The rise of the EAU and the abandonment of the Petrodollar spells the end of the American way of life. Ukraine should want nothing to do with the European Union and its ruthless bankers from the IMF. The ink is not even dry on Ukraine’s new and illegitimate government headed by Western bankers and the plundering of Ukraine has already begun. I will unequivocally state that if I were Putin, I would have already invaded Ukraine because merely surrounding the country with his military will not reverse the economic Armageddon which is presently transpiring. With what is going on inside of Ukraine, Russia will gain an ally with few resources. However, the stakes of what is happening in Ukraine are far higher than the welfare of its people. A reformed old Soviet style empire will pose a military and an economic threat to the central bankers in the West as well as the World Bank and the IMF. The EAU and the BRIC Nations The fully developed EAU could militarily challenge NATO and in particular, the United States. However, Putin’s plan is to grow the EAU and its Eurasian Customs Union into a “supra-national union of sovereign states like the present version of the European Union. This means that the EAU could also challenge the economic dominance of central banking. This new and mammoth organization would unite economies, legal systems, customs services and most importantly, military capabilities, in order to form a formidable bridge between Europe, Asia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa. China and India alone would account for well over two billion people. The military forces of NATO would be overwhelmed. If Ukraine, and later Georgia, accede to the European Union, Putin’s plan of leading the most powerful alliance on the planet will die in Kiev. Syria and Iran Are the Flashpoint Let’s return, for a moment, to some universal truths. The central banking cartel emanating out of Basel have based their control of the world’s nations upon debt slavery created by forced adherence to a fiat currency. If a country’s regime becomes resistant, people like George Soros manipulate the currency, agitate the populace and a regime change takes place which is often fatal for the present leadership. The Federal Reserve worked for decades to remove the US from the gold standard so that they could enforce this strategy of debt enslavement. Following the 1944 conference at Bretton Woods which established the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, fiat currency has reigned supreme. Yes, the banksters will someday want to collapse the dollar (i.e. the Petrodollar), but not until they are ready. An intact United States is still needed to militarily enforce their will upon uncooperative nations such as Iraq and Libya. Therefore, the Petrodollar must survive in the short-term. The bastards from Basel have a relatively new problem. The BRIC nations are no longer willing to fight for second place and are challenging the Petrodollar in Iran by purchasing Iranian oil for gold. Ordinarily, this would have meant regime change in Iran and death for the leaders. However, the BRIC nations have rallied around Iran. Russia and China told the US that if they invaded Iran, the US would be nuked. Subsequently, the impotent illegal alien occupying the White House subsequently decided on an incremental approach. Obama postured to invade Syria last year. Occupation of Syria accompanied by the presence of American medium range missile batteries would effectively prevent the Russians from moving ground troops into Syria. Further, Syria could serve as a jumping off point from which to invade Iran. The US was hoping that the invasion of Syria and the subsequent invasion of Iran would occur before the Russians and Chinese would have much of a chance to respond. Thus, the Petrodollar would be preserved. This explains the civil war raging inside of Syria. The CIA is supplying the Syrian rebels (i.e. al Qaeda) with weapons in an attempt to overthrow Syrian leader, Assad, in an attempt to take over the country. The inexperienced Obama was outmaneuvered by Putin and Syria was saved for the time being. As an aside, the association between the Obama administration and al-Qaeda, both in Libya and in Syria, had to be covered up prior to the 2012 election. This is why CIA arms broker, Ambassador Chris Stevens, had to be murdered in order to conceal the White House/al-Qaeda connection. Events rarely occur in isolation. The presstitutes of the corporate controlled media label people who connect these kinds of dots as conspiracy theorists, when in fact, they should be labeled as the truthful media. Conclusion The formation of a Putin-led EAU is threatening enough to the West. However, if a fully mature EAU forms a military and economic alliance with the rest of the BRIC nations, the US and Europe are in a lot of trouble. What all this adds up to is the fact that Ukraine is the most important chess piece in the world. If the Western banking cartels cannot get in and stop the bleeding of the Petrodollar coming from Iran, the economy of the West will collapse because the dollar will collapse. The year 2015 looms large as this is the target date for Putin to complete the construction of the EAU and form an alliance with the other BRIC nations. This means that a war must take place prior to the end of 2015. This war will undoubtedly be nuclear with the losing side resorting to the nuclear option. To my fellow Americans, it is easy to fall in love with Putin and declare him a hero because he is opposing the IMF and the World Bank. However, if Putin has his way, he will become America’s worst nightmare. Putin is under the control of the banksters at the highest level. What most of us do not realize is that there is the central banking cartel and then there are the people who really run finance on this planet. The central banks, such as the Federal Reserve, are merely mid-level managers which were created t to serve a purpose. The coming conflict is about the preservation of central banking as an international element of control. The real power on this planet are above central banking and are pushing the world towards an eventual war of unification. A subsequent World War III will wipe out all competing economies and out of chaos will come order. We are about to witness an old-fashioned cockfight while the real power brokers sit back and wait for nature to take its course. For reasons I will share in Part three, I do not believe that World War III will begin in either Ukraine or in Syria. Any guesses?