A Line in the Sand

When liberals talk about "gun culture" . . . It isn't about the guns really, though gun control culture is worried about having that much personal autonomy in the hands of people who don't share their values and like their independence, it's about rural America. And rural America, like guns, is another symbol that stands in for traditional America.
--Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish Blog: Gun Culture and Gun Control Culture

Molṑn labéis ( Molon Labe) is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. . . So what does molon labe mean? Well, it is an invitation -- and a challenge -- all rolled into one. From the original Greek molon labe means: "Come and take 'em."
-- JD Longstreet, Right Side News Blog: Americans Won’t Give Up Guns, Law or Not

Technorati Tags: Liberty and Tyranny,Constitution,Individual Rights,Second Amendment

As we end the year here in the rump end of flyover country, we have been talking about the new and even more insidious threats to our liberty and our way of life.  

Americans of a certain bent are fond of talking about “wars” that are not shooting wars. From the Obama administration we have heard that if we do not like our tax money going toward someone else’s contraception, we are perpetrating a “War on Women.” Ronald Reagan brought us the “War on Drugs” (which has become a shooting war down on the border), and LBJ brought us the “War on Poverty” all those years ago. We do not appear to be winning either of these ersatz wars. I am sure there are other “wars” that are not wars out there, and as a Libertarian, I am deeply suspicious of “wars” on inanimate objects or conditions, because they are generally used as an excuse to limit our liberties.

In rural America, however, we have known for some time that the executive branch of the federal government has plans to wage a war on our way of life. It started in 2008 when presidential candidate Barack Obama told his supporters at a San Francisco fundraiser about rural Americans bitterly clinging to “guns and religion.” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA). This war isn’t only about guns and religion, both of which the progressive leftists of the Obama administration despise, it is also a war on rural small holders and is being waged by the government against us with bureaucratic weapons such as land use policies, sweeping EPA regulations, and farm bills such as SB 1050, which set the stage for regulations on what we can sell and even what we can consume from our own farms and ranches. 

But the war on “flyover country”—that vast interior of the North American continent that is terra incognita to the progressive city dwellers on the coasts—is heating up because of the fear this administration has of law-abiding, armed citizens. Their maps are not labeled “Here there be Dragons” in fancy, medieval print; rather they say: “Here there be GUNS.” And as Daniel Greenfield pointed out at the Sultan Knish Blog (quoted above), those guns are a symbol to the progressives. They represent  people who do not need or want federal government help, and who often refuse it, knowing from bitter experience that when the Feds come marching in, local interests are no match for the interests of outsiders such as environmentalists and bureaucrats. In the rump end of flyover country we understand that government “help” really means government interference, the destruction of our local economies, and ultimately, tyranny by a metro-majority that doesn’t know a thing about our way of life, fears it, and wishes to force us to conform to an alien and un-American standard.

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in suburban New Jersey is the incident that Obama, his progressive administration, his media sycophants, and the metro-dependent control freaks have been waiting for. Never mind that the shooter was not a legal gun owner, and as Daniel Greenfield wrote, was not part of what the ubiquitous they call the “gun culture.” They were all indecently salivating to confiscate guns before the little bodies of the innocent were even removed from the classroom. Never let a good crisis go to waste, as their mentor Saul Alinsky liked to say.

Since the 2008 election, Americans have been anticipating that Obama and his minions would be coming for our liberties. Some of us paid attention to what he said before he was elected, and we knew who his mentors were and what political philosophy they bequeathed to him. During November and December 2008, gun sales rose dramatically, and ammunition fairly flew off the shelves of gun shops and sporting goods departments. In Spring 2009, many of us formed and joined Tea Party organizations  and 9-12 groups, banding together to protest the economic consequences of Obama’s socialist political creed. Some of us woke up to the threat to our liberties for the first time. As election day 2012 neared, gun and ammunition sales picked up again, following the same pattern as in 2008. We were aware that with the need of re-election behind him, Obama’s campaign against liberty would likely pick up speed.

On the Tuesday before Sandy Hook, the Catron Kid and I were in Cope Reynold’s Southwest Shooting Authority in Arizona to purchase some ammo and look over a new rifle for shooting coyotes and other small varmints on the ranch. (In rural America our guns are tools, and are most often used to protect livestock from predators. They are rarely drawn against another human being. It is not necessary because we value one another’s life, liberty and property way out here). You may recognize Cope’s name and establishment, because his gun shop has become famous or infamous (depending on your politics) for the sign he posted on his shop’s door:

(See story at The Blaze).

As we looked at the coyote rifle, and as I mock-aimed an AR-15 and an AK-47, feeling them out on my shoulder, we talked about the possibility of an “assault” weapons ban. At that point, Nancy Pelosi was talking about reviving the ban that had been rescinded in 1994, with some new and worrisome restrictions, but not including outright confiscation. The Catron Kid wondered aloud if, should we be threatened with confiscation, we ought to hide our guns. SWSA employees responded that at that point, we would be facing civil war. We talked briefly about how Arizona would respond, and I allowed as to how we should have bought property at least 11 miles west, over the border in Arizona. The conversation turned to why Jews, Blacks, American Indians and Mormons should not be against gun control, and then we make our purchases and went on with our day. As we continued our errands, I realized that I reacted to the thought of civil war differently than before. I did not deny the possibility, nor did I feel regret that I might oppose my own government, because I now believe that my government has made me its enemy. It was another line in the sand that I had crossed in my own mind, like joining the Tea Party, registering Libertarian, and signing the Articles of Freedom. For the record, I will defend the Constitution against all enemies, but I prefer to do my fighting with the pen and at the ballot box. A shooting war is the last thing I want.

Four days later, when the news of Sandy Hook broke, and almost immediately the press began attacking the Second Amendment, we went on the offensive in the social media, correcting the obvious ignorance of the press and the administration, and making it clear why a so-called “assault” weapons ban would not have prevented Sandy Hook or anything like it. It was in a post on a social media site in which someone opined that patriots cannot be serious about the “need” for the Second Amendment, that we certainly can’t be thinking in “these modern times” of protecting our rights against our own government. And she referenced civil war. A commenter replied: “We are already in a civil war,” elaborating that the culture wars against the founding American values, against our liberties and against rural America amount to exactly that.
 
“We are already in a civil war.”
That statement rings true to me. It is not at all the same as during the late 1850's because this is not a regional battle, like the one that the Mason-Dixon Line defined. Neither is it about the false ideology of “state’s rights”--we know that only individuals have rights, and that governments have delegated powers--although I think it is time long past due for the States to enforce  the Tenth Amendment against the Feds. Nor is the object to deny freedom to others or to institutionalize racism. The culture wars—the war on our way of life here in flyover country—is about our individual rights, the ones that are threatened by an out-of-control federal government.

We are already in a civil war.
But it is not a shooting war. And I would rather that it never become one. However, this government has been whittling away at our rights and attacking our values for a very long time. Obama is only the latest and greatest threat in a century-long series of executives determined to stamp out individual liberty, make our Constitution meaningless, and aggregate power to himself.

Each of us, those who value life, liberty and property, must ask ourselves where is the line past which we must resist, physically if necessary? Each of us needs to know for ourselves where is the line in the sand. Where does tyranny stop? And at what point are we willing to give up our lives in order to preserve liberty for ourselves and our children?

As JD Longstreet (quoted above) wrote in Right Side News Blog:

To those on the political left and those pushing gun control -- in the childish naivete -- You need to understand two things: One -- Americans are NOT going to give up their guns! That's one. Number two is this: If you really want to begin a civil war in this country, continue your efforts to take those guns and you will most certainly have one, and I do not think you have any idea, any inkling, of just how ferocious and brutal such a war can be.

We know that Pelosi’s new, draconian measures are not about gun safety. We know that these power-mongers inside the beltway are using the deaths of 20 children for purposes of their own, and those purposes are aimed at our liberties and our ability to defend them.  We know that Diane Feinstein and Harry Reed are both hypocrites—both are or were gun owners who had concealed-carry permits—and they wish to deny the same to us. And we also know that in the advancement of tyranny and totalitarian rule, the confiscation of guns comes before the violation of free speech. An unarmed citizenry has no opportunity to resist the loss of freedom of speech and press and assembly. We know that these rights are already under threat by the Feds, who use pretexts such as security and political correctness to work their nefarious designs. We know that for many of us, the line in the sand may well be confiscation of our rifles. As Longstreet continues:

The government will, as Charlton Heston famously stated, have to "pry the weapons from their cold dead hands." Heck, the government might actually get away with a couple of such encounters before the backlash begins.
But it will begin -- and when it does, there will be hell to pay. In the end, it will be the end of the United States as we know it.
Understand. There are some states that will move to secede rather than obey federal laws that force their citizens to disarm. Other states will arrest and incarcerate federal officers attempting to disarm that states citizens within the physical boundaries of that state.

Understand. These things are already being discussed in states and counties where governments and sheriffs understand their primary duty is to protect the rights of the citizens who elected them. There are many places in flyover country where state and local governments understand that Tenth Amendment pushback against the overweening power-mongering of the federal government is long overdue. Arizona is one.  There are many states and counties in which constitutional sheriffs (CLEOs) take the SCOTUS Printz v. United States (1997) decision seriously, in which SCOTUS held that:

. . . Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

I agree with Longstreet that the Feds are dangerously out of control, and that their cheerleaders in the media and among people in the street are not thinking with their brains, nor are they aware of the cold reception of their totalitarian agenda (for our own good, of course) by the people who live outside of their vivid blue enclaves. The use of emotion by politicians and the media to whip the populace into mob action against citizens, unjustly and unrighteously threatening to violate a fundamental right by confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens, will create a response, but not the one the perpetrators envision. Mob rule is contrary to our values, our Constitution and our way of life. There will come a point of firm, determined resistance.



We do not want civil war. We did not seek this war upon our values and our way of life. We want only to be left alone to live our lives. Many of us fervently wish that those who disagree with the Constitution as written, and who dislike our liberty, would remove themselves to a country that has laws and customs in keeping with their progressive values. As Sam Adams wrote:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

These were strong words at the time, and they are strong words now. There is a point at which there can be no more discussion and no more debate about the encroachment upon our liberties. We have been coming close to that point over the past four years, as ordinary Americans have been waking up to smell the bitterness of a government that has long ago lost touch. We know that our elected servants believe that they are the masters, and want to discard the Constitution for a tyranny by the majority,  thus forsaking forever the republican values of liberty and individual rights written in that charter by which they were elected. We recognize that this government is now led by an executive who is unfamiliar with our values and our way of life. He has shown nothing but contempt for us, lying to us by whim, and using every event to dismiss our Constitution and erode our liberties. That he was re-elected by a narrow margin of the popular vote does not give him any other mandate than that assumed by every President of the United States: “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

There is war upon our way of life, against our liberties and our individual sovereignty. We did not seek this war, and thus far we have patiently used peaceful remedies to avert it. This attack is upon the heart of our values as Americans, and rural America is the place where it has begun, but it is not where it will end. This is a battle that we did not seek. But this is a war that we intend to win, in order to secure the lives and liberty of our children and their children. We intend to win it peacefully.
But we will win it at the cost of our lives, if necessary.

To those who intend to force me to surrender my arms, I say: μολὼν λαβέ!
And I am not alone.

Lieberman's Citizenship Bill: An Attack on American Justice

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty

to purchase a little Temporary Safety,

Deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

--Ben Franklin, 1759


Jumping on bandwagons in response to events rather than dealing with issues according to principle is the MO of a venal politician. We have many venal politicians in Washington and in our State Houses. The Progressive Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has recently indicated how little he cares for the basic principles of American Justice in his proposed bill that would allow the federal government to strip a person of his US Citizenship without a trial and conviction, simply because the government believes that he has "ties" to a terrorist organization. Here is Lieberman, breaking his Oath of Office by proposing a clearly unconstitutional bill:






This bill is one those act now, think later political moves that come in response to an incident--in this case, the failed car-bomb attack in Times Square last weekend. Since the accused car-bomber, Faisel Shahzad, is a naturalized American citizen, he has certain rights that are protected by the US Constitution. When he was arrested, he was given his Miranda Warning, which is familar to every avid watcher of TV cop shows from Dragnet to CSI. The Miranda Warning is a statement from the arresting officer(s) to the detainee, that explicates his due process rights during police investigation and interrogation. We've all heard it:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

When Shahzad was arrested a firestorm of controversy erupted over the fact that the Miranda Warning was read to him. And so Lieberman, supported by the Scott Brown of Massachusetts proposed that any US citizen who has been accused of "having ties" to a terrorist organization, should be stripped of his citizenship immediately--presumably so that the United States can interrogate him without telling him his rights.

This is wrong on principle, and pernicious as well, and since non-citizens also have certain due process rights in US Courts, it's useless as well.

On principle, the problem is that the United States Constitution guarantees that the rights of any person cannot be removed from him by the United States without due process of law:

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . ." (Amendment V)

Note that it says "no person"--it applies to all human beings, not only to American citizens. However, in the Lieberman Bill, a citizen on the mere suspicion of undefined "connections" to terrorist organizations could be deprived of his citizenship and the rights and privileges thereof, without being even suspected of a crime, let alone actually tried and convicted for one. This is an outrageous violation of the liberty (at least) of American citizens. The due process rights in the Bill of Rights includes the right to presentment or indictment by a grand jury for capital and infamous crimes, the right to be free from double-jeopardy, the right to a speedy trial decided by a jury of one's peers, the right to be informed of the charges to be tried, the right to the assistance of counsel, and the right to be confronted by the accusers and witnesses. The Lieberman bill would make a person guilty by mere association, and strip him of his rights on suspicion of such, rendering punishment before he is tried and convicted.

I suppose this is the logical result of the years of trial by media which has culminated in the popular sentiment that a person who is forced to do the "perp walk" before TV cameras is guilty unless he proves himself innocent. And maybe not even then.

This proposed bill is pernicious because it gives the government unprecedented power to violate the rights of any person that it chooses not to like. How hard would it be to fabricate "ties" to some group or organization that the government decides is terrorist? Gentle Reader, if you think this is far-fetched consider the MIAC Fusion Center Report that placed ties with Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, the use of the Gadsen Flag, and discussion of the US Constitution on par with domestic terrorism. Talking Idiots Heads on MSNBC have all but accused Talk Radio personalities such as Glenn Beck of commiting sedition ( something that should NEVER be a crime in a free country--but that's another blog).

This bill goes far beyond the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that caused mass protest across the United States, and even beyond Woodrow Wilson's persecution of those who spoke against US involvement in WWI. Under those equally unconstitutional laws, at the least the accused had to be indicted, tried and convicted prior to being stripped of any rights. Joe Lieberman would strip a person of rights before any trial could occur, and even without suspicion of any "crime."

The passage of this law could and would lead to the worst kind of terrorism: terrorism against the people by their own government and the ongoing repression of speech and thought by the state, and the outright suppression and persecution of dissent upon those opposed to specific policies.

Joe Lieberman wants to keep you safe by stripping you of your rights. He claims that this power would be very limited in scope. I remind you that never in history has a government arrogated to itself power that it did not use. In the immortal words of Judge Andrew Napolitano: "It is not government's job to keep you safe. It is government's job to keep you free!"

On the Border: Bleeding Arizona

There are never complete parallels in history, but patterns can often be found, where events in the past have an eerie similarity to events in the present, mainly because they are occuring for similar reasons.

This past weekend, the governor of Arizona signed Senate Bill 1070 into Arizona state law. This law purports to do what the United States federal government has failed to do--stem the tide of illegal incursions across the border with Mexico.

This invasion of illegal border crossers is no longer composed of campesinos looking for work, but now includes larger and larger numbers of violent gang members (many from Central and South America), drug runners, and other criminals. In the past few years, border violence has increased, and ranchers of all backgrounds on the border have suffered property damage, violent crime and murder. This mayhem has spilled over from the border areas to the cities and towns of the southwestern United States. Last year, for example, after committing a number of other crimes, members of a violent South American gang shot up a Denny's Diner during a robbery on Albuquerque's West Side, killing and maiming innocent Americans for no apparent reason. Gruesome murders of drug runners and drug cartel lackeys have occured here in the Albuquerque area, and in Arizona drug-related kidnappings have made Phoenix one of the kidnapping capitols of the world.

According to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, it is the job of the federal government to provide for a legal process for immigration and naturalization for those wishing to enter the United States. The States, in return for their entry into the Union, expect to enjoy the protection of their borders with other nation-states. And it is on the border that the United States has the authority to provide that protection.

But the federal government, over at least 20 years and spanning four presidencies, has refused to control the border with Mexico, thus refusing to protect the life, liberty and property of citizens of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. This is not a racial issue at all, since most of those border citizens are Mexican-American, Hispanic, Spanish, or in California, Latino. (The differences between these categories appears to be regional: in New Mexico, most of the locals were made citizens of the US via the treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago after the Mexican War, and they call themselves "Spanish.").

Arizona, in particular, has experienced what can only be called an invasion, (as has the People's Republic of California), and the federal government has not only refused to control the border--which IS its Constitutional duty--but it has also imposed unconstitutional controls on the border states--forcing them to provide education, free health care, and welfare to people who are here illegally. This has placed an enormous burden on the infrastructure of these states-- and schools, hospitals, and law enforcement have been severely challenged.

As I said a year or more ago in my first On the Border blog entry, these states--except for California, have actually called out the National Guard to try to do what the Feds will not; to control the border, in order to protect the life, liberty and property of citizens and legal immigrants living within US territory.

The new law signed by Governor Jan Brewer seems to be an act of desperation more than anything else. It is not a good law--it will further burden Arizona law enforcement, and will very likely be another instrument for the harrassment (intended or not) of American citizens who have a Spanish surname or accent, or who 'look Mexican.' No matter how desperate the situation, one's name, accent or genetic heritage is NOT probable cause. US Citizens have the right to travel within the borders of our own country without answering questions and without producing papers. The right to security in one's person, effects and papers is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and the power of the government to question, search and seize one's person or one's property is likewise severely limited by the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Further, it is likely that SCOTUS will eventually rule the law unconstitutional, and it is very likely that the governor and the state legislators of Arizona know it. In the meantime, the federal government is likely to refuse to cooperate with Arizona law enforcement, creating a greater burden on Arizona cops, and further animosity between Arizona's citizens and their own federal government. Thus this is a situation in which federal neglect of its duties and its refusal to resolve the issue of the illegal crossings of our southern border has resulted in a stand-off with a state, and that this stand-off is likely to spread. Bleeding Arizona is an omen of the shape of things to come.

In the history of the United States, we've seen such stand-offs before. I am thinking of 'Bleeding Kansas', which was a full-out border war between pro-slavery groups from southern Kansas and Missouri, and anti-slavery groups from Kansas. The tide of emigration to Kansas increased substantially, as members of both sides tried to increase their numbers to influence how Kansas would enter the Union--as a slave-state or free. At one time, Kansas actually had two competing territorial governments, and southern armies marched into Kansas to confront John Brown and his guerilla army. Although the proximate causes of Bleeding Kansas are different that what we see in Arizona, and the violence much more explosive than protestors in Phoenix throwing water bottles at the Arizona Capitol Police, the ultimate cause is the same: the refusal of the federal government to deal with an inflammatory issue because it would upset a delicate balance of power in Washington.

To put it bluntly, our Pols lack the courage to take real stands on the issue and develop a principled and Constitutional policy on immigration. The US can have open borders only if the US scuttles the welfare state; but rather than discuss the fundamental issues, our Pols pander to the electorate in order to retain their seats. They are the furthest thing from statesmen that this country has seen since the Compromise Generation of the 1840's and 1850's.

And so they put sovereign states like Arizona into the impossible position of either enforcing federal law at the state level without compensation, and without a Constitutional mandate, or choosing to go bankrupt as all the people who will be forced to pay for it flee the State because of the tax burden and because of the lawless violence on the border.

That Arizona is pushing back against the federal government is not surprising. But it does not auger well for the relationship between an increasingly out-of-touch imperial federal government that has long ago overreached its Constitutionally limited power, and the States, which are sovereign entities now expect to sit down and shut up for the sake of increasingly worthless federal reserve notes. The federal government is bankrupt, and will now try to stay in business a little longer by preying on the states. The push-back is inevitable.

Arizona should scrap the unworkable law, and instead tote up the costs of the federal neglect of its border with Mexico, and bill the federal government for it. New Mexico and Texas* should do the same. The bills will not be paid, but they will be a moral shot across the bow of the United States Ship of State.

*Arizona and Texas may actually do it; New Mexico--manana-land USA--is very unlikely to because it still receives two dollars from the Feds for every dollar sent in. We are working on it, but it will be a difficult sell here. I will not even suggest California do it. That state is currently positioning itself to bill the other states through the federal government for its own irresponsible spending.

The Articles of Freedom Ceremony at the Roundhouse

They thought we were skinheads. Evidently, the Roundhouse security didn't click through on the links to the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, and to the Articles of Freedom website. So our ceremony, in the Rotunda of the Roundhouse, was attended by a few Constitutionalists, and large group of the Capitol Police. Well, perhaps the policemen heard us talking about their Oath to the Constitution. I hope so. At one point in the ceremony, I said:

"How does anyone taking this vow, elected officials especially, reconcile this with the violations that have been committed against our Constitution, and what those violations have done and are doing to America, with effects for generations to come?"

During the ceremony, they did allow a tour group composed for the most part of retirees and schoolchildren to walk through, so by then I imagine that they realized that we are simply ordinary Americans, concerned about our out of control government.

(Here we are getting ready for the ceremony. Michael Lunnon had put our state table marker from CC2009 on the lectern, but the Capitol Security made us take it down. Evidently, there's been some incidents of anti-Richardson signs at the Capitol lately. Wonder why?)

The New Mexico Roundhouse is the only round capitol building in the US, and it looks like a Zia--the symbol on our seal, from the air. New Mexico has the oldest Capitol Building in the US--the Palace of the Governors--built to house the Spanish colonial governor--pre-dates Williamsburg and New England. New Mexico also has the newest, our current capital, the Roundhouse, finished in 1966.

(Picture: The Great Seal of the State of New Mexico was on the front of the lectern. It is an interesting seal because it shows the American Bald Eagle protecting the Mexican Brown Eagle, which has a snake in its beak and an cactus in it's talons; the same Brown Eagle is on the Mexican Flag. The date 1912--the year of our statehood is in Arabic rather than Roman numerals, as the the people thought the Roman numerals were too prententious for us. The Motto--Cresit Eundo--means "it grows as it goes". Although some think it is nonsensical, I believe it fits New Mexico very well.)

Although press releases were sent out, there was only one person there who may have been from the press--but he didn't identify himself. No matter, the ceremony was intended to be a public speaking out to our government which is in violation of the Constitution. Although we hope for a response to the Articles of Freedom, we do not expect it. The purpose of this public speaking out is to have a record that we have petitioned for redress of our grievances, and getting no response, now we have provided our servant government with instructions on the violations from the reak Sovereigns--the people themselves. In the future whether we regain our liberty as free men and women, or if we lose our liberty entirely, there will be record that some of us resisted the encroaching power of the state.

Despite the fact that we were treated as if we, the people who own the building, were somehow a danger to it, we were happy that we were able to use the Rotunda. We did so with prior notice, and we did sign a copy of the rules--but we did not ask for a permit to speak. Rights need no permission. And in that sense, perhaps the State of New Mexico is more honorable than many other places. They did not ask us to violate our rights.



(Picture: The inside of the Rotunda is faced with native New Mexican travertine, carefully matched. The Rotunda is full of light from the simple but beautiful ocula above).










Rather than beginning with the Pledge to the Flag, we began with a more meaningful (to us) Pledge of Honor to the Constitution for the United States:

"I pledge my Life, my Fortune, and my Sacred Honor, to protect and defend the Constitution, and the Republic which it forms, One nation of Sovereign States, with Liberty and Justice for ALL." (I wrote this after looking at various other pledges to the Constitution).









The second part of the ceremony, after all the pledges and the Prayer of the Continental Congress 2009, read the statement of purpose:


"Our message is not about the resusitation of a dead Constitution.The Constitution still towers above the wrecks of our national life.


. . . We are NOT fanatics. We are NOT extremists. We do NOT seek revolution or anarchy.


As a people we need to ask . . . what kind of a country do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?


Shall we let our Constitution and its essential principles be murdered by the powers of this world? Will we tolerate TYRANNY merely to be comfortable?


. . . Now we offer these instructions to our government to obey the Constitution, which after all, is a strongly worded set of principles to govern the government, NOT the people.


By the provisions in the Constitution, the PEOPLE have formed the government, and enabled the government to act in certain ways. HOWEVER, the PEOPLE have also purposely and markedly restricted and prohibited the government from acting in certain other ways.


. . .We are not moved by any hasty suggestion of anger or revenge. Through every possible change of fortune we adhere peacably to this determination.


. . . It is our obligation as responsible citizens of this country to set a proper value upon, and to defend to the utmost, our just rights and the blessings of life and liberty. . .


. . . [We are placing our government and its officials] on notice that, We, the Free People of America, believe them to be in violation of their Oaths of Office and the Constitution for the United States of America."

Dave Batcheller then read the Declaration and Resolves of the Continental Congress 2009:





" . . . In defense of a Free People, the time has come to reassert our god-given natural rights and cast off tyranny.


Let the facts reveal: The federal government of the United States of America was instituted to secure the individual rights of our citizens, and instead now threatens our life, liberty and property through usurpations of the Constitution. Emboldened by our own lack of responsibility in these matters, government has exceded its mandate and abandoned those founding principles that have made our nation exceptional.


. . . Whereupon we, as citizen-delegates have gathered in defense of divine justice, liberty and the principles of limited government, now stand in recognition of the Supreme Law of the Land--the Constitution for the United States of America.


Therefore, we demand that government immediately re-establish Constitutional Rule of Law, lest the people be forced to do so themselves; and we hereby serve notice that in the defense of Freedom and Liberty there shall be NO COMPROMISE to which we will ever yield."




After I then read a list of the fourteen Constitutional violations for which the formal petitions for Redress of Grievance had been ignored, as identified by the Continental Congress, the people present were invited to join in taking the Pledge of the Articles of Freedom:

"In full view of the Creator as my Witness,
I hereby pledge to join with millions of Americans, to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable to their oaths of office: To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America.
In seeking to hold them accountable, I shall hold myself accountable to do the same.
I renounce and condemn, any and all INITIATION of violent force, and will pursue all Lawful and Constitutional means to fulfill my duty.
I speak these works as an Eternal Record of the will of a people to be Free."

These are the highlights.

After the ceremony, Dave, Michael and I were escorted by security to deliver the Articles of Freedom to the Governor's office, and the offices of the Speaker of the State House, and the President Pro-Tempore of the State Senate. These offices are in the Roundhouse. We then went (sans entourage) to the offices of both US Senators, as well as the US Representative in whose district Santa Fe is located to deliver the Articles to them.

At each place, we gave the staffer a short shpiel and then handed over the articles. As I said above, it would be nice if they look at them but that is a lot to expect from these politicians. Their bread is not buttered by the people that they supposedly represent.

Now we work to get that 3 - 5 % of the population on board with the concept of peaceful but determined civic action, in order to put the pressure on our out-of-control government.
That is the next step. Whatever happens in the end, at least I will be able to tell my grandchildren that I did not fiddle while the Constitution burned.

From Petitions to Articles of Freedom

On April 19, my fellow delegates--Michael Lunnon and Dave Batcheller--and I will be serving the Articles of Freedom on our federal representatives, and on the governor's office in Santa Fe. At the same time, delegates and/or their representatives from every state will be serving the same document.

The Articles of Freedom are an outcome of the Continental Congress 2009--a gathering of delegates from each of 48 states--who congressed in Illinois to deliberate upon 14 Petitions for Redress of Grievances and determined that the servant government was in violation of our rights as protected by the Constitution, primarily by not responding to the First Amendment right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. Here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peacably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

At least fourteen petitions have been formally brought to all three branches of government over the past 15 years, and CC2009 concluded that no response whatsover was recieved. Therefore, members of our government are in violation of their oaths of office which require them to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Given this pattern of lack of response, and the cynical disregard shown to the Constitution by members of government (recall Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who laughed at the thought that government should obey the Constitution?), the time for Petitions has passed and the time has come for the people to assert their rights and to give instructions to the servant government.

The Articles of Freedom not only document these violations to the Constitution, and the disrespect shown by our government to the Supreme Law of the Land; they also document numerous specific violations to every article in the Constitution and provide instructions to all three branches of the federal government, and to the Sovereign States, in order to bring government into obedience to their employers, We the People of the United States.

In addition, the Articles of Freedom also provide suggestions for civic action by the people, and provide a pledge taken by the delegates who signed the Articles, as well as a pledge to be signed by members of the people. That second pledge is an oath or affirmation for individuals to sign onto the process of calling the servant government to account:



"In full view of the Creator as my Witness, I hereby pledge my signature and vow to join with a goodly number of millions of Americans to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for all of their violations, with a firm reminder that each one has sworn an Oath (or Affirmation) to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution for the United States of America. In seeking to hold them accountable, I shall hold myself accountable to do the same.

We the undersigned renounce and condemn any and all INITIATION of violent force and will pursue all lawful and Constitutional means to fulfill our duty.

I place my name here and shall participate as an Eternal Record of the Will of the People to be Free."


The Pledge and Signature Form may be found here.


And here is an episode of Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch in which Bob Shulz, Executive Director of We the People Foundation, and delegate from New York, explains the process of petitioning for Redress of Grievances and the reason that we are now past the time of Petitions.





Take part in the preservation of your Liberty! Sign the Pledge. Participate in nationwide civic action, and defend the Constitution. As Bob Shulz says, "The Constitution does not defend itself." It's our job as freedom loving Americans to protect and defend it.

R3volution: Liberty First!

What are rights? If you have to ask permission from someone, it's not a right. If only some people are given a pass on an issue, it's not a right. A right accrues to you as a person, and must be exercised wherever you are, regardless of what others might think or do.

In the United States, our natural rights to life, liberty and property are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and they are protected in the Constitution. But the Constitution does not "give" us our rights. Rather it forbids the federal government from violating them. Specific rights are described in the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the Constitution--but the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that our rights are unenumerable, whereas the privileges we grant the federal government are enumerated and circumscribed. And since the Constitutions of all of the several states also pledge to protect the natural rights of every citizen, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply in every state.

Every government functionary, from every branch of federal government, state government, and the military, swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. These people have no obligation or loyalty to any politician, any other government official or any other person. Their sole obligation is to the Constitution of the United States, and their function is always to defer to and protect the rights of the citizens of the United States for whom they work. This means that every senator, representative, military person, sheriff, lawyer or police officer is obligated to uphold every provision of the United States Constitution. This is one of the ways in which that document serves to protect our rights. (Please check out Oathkeepers and No Sheriff Left Behind to see how the military and our peace officers can do their office and protect our rights).

But we only have the rights we assert are ours. If we allow the violation of our rights, if we ask permission to exercise our rights, we have abdicated them. Our rights travel with us wherever we go. As Michael Badnarik says in "It's Good to be King!", our rights exist wherever our feet land. Therefore, if we are to reverse the terrible violation of our rights in the growing police state in the United States, it is important to exercise our rights, even when it is inconvenient to do so. We must do so politely and firmly, without iniation of force against anyone (which is a violation of the rights of others), but we must do it.

The other day the Liberty Kids, traveling in New Orleans as part of the Southern Tour of Operation Defuse (in conjunction with the Liberty Restoration Project and Texans for Responsible Government), encountered a potential violation of their rights when their car was pulled over on suspicion of a traffic violation. The officer asked for the ID's of everyone in the car, including passengers. Only the driver, since he has signed a contract by obtaining a driver's license and is driving on public roads, is required to show his license. All others are not required except when the officer can cite a probable cause that each has personally violated the law. (There is no collective responsibility for any crime in the United States. That would be a violation of individual rights).

One of the Liberty Kids, Catherine 'Conintelpro' Bleish, refused to give over her ID thus asserting her rights. She politely requested to be informed of what crime the officer was accusing her of, and she also informed the officer that the whole encounter was being streamed live on the web through three different computers in the car. The whole episode may be viewed at Qik, here.

In watching--or more accurately listening, it was dark--two aspects of the encounter were especially interesting. The first was that the officer was uninformed about the Constitutional rights of the passengers in the car. He called for extreme back-up--6 squad cars--and tried to tell Catherine that it was not necessary for her to stream the encounter. She replied that on the contrary, it was "very necesssary" and continued to stream. This alerted the grassroots of the R3volution movement. The second was that it became somewhat of a standoff when Catherine requested that the officer show her the law. Because between the live streaming and Twitter, the R3volution grassroots who were monitering Qik and Twitter, quickly pulled up the relevant Louisiana Statute and case law and the Liberty Kids had all the information before the police did.

The Liberty kids also cited the Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, Shall not be Violated, and no Warrents shall Issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The officer refused to listen to the citation of the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold, walking away, probably because he was unable to bully the Liberty Kids.

Of course, the Liberty Kids driver got a ticket, and the whole stand-off took about forty minutes. But as the cop walked away, the Liberty Kids wished him a good night, told him that he served a beautiful city, and then called out "Liberty First!" The cops pulled away, "tails between their legs" according to John Bush, Texas Libertarian.

Liberty First! It means taking the time to assert our rights, to act as free human beings, to politely the forcefully demand that our public servants understand their duty to the Constitution.

Liberty First! It means that all of us should carry a United States Constitution and the Constitutions of our respective states in the glove box with the registration information. We should politely assert our rights in any encounters with our servants, the peace officers. They have forgotten that their duty is not "to arrest and detain", rather it is to "protect and serve." Protect our rights and serve us. It is our duty as their employers to educate them so that they understand that they are to be Peace Officers, not law-enforcement. The Engineering Geek and I plan to carry extra copies to give to the officers upon any such encounter.

Liberty First! It means that we all should equip ourselves to photograph and record every encounter with our public servants, so that we have a record of what happened. When they know they are being recorded, they will be more likely to remember their place and their duty, even if they have never read the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. If we can live stream or twitter with the grassroots, so much the better. Transparency is more than a political campaign promise, easily violated. It is our protection against a police state.

Liberty First! Foremost! And always!

R3volution: Constructive Notice of Instruction

I have recently learned that the Senate will be voting on their version of the Healthcare Bill at 1 AM, Monday, December 21. Talk about voting on a bill in the middle of the night! Why are they so afraid to let it see the light of day. This is likely a different bill than the one that has been debated

The Albuquerque Journal Washington Bureau Reporter, Michael Coleman, wrote in this morning's Sunday Journal that the New Mexico Delegation has been downplaying recent votes on spending, saying:

"At a time when many Americans are tightening their belts . . . it seems a bit unseemly for Congress to put another $446 Billion on the federal credit card, isn't it? And there's more to come--much more." (Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. p. B2).

Much of that "much more" in spending will come with this takeover of health insurance by the federal government. And much more than spending is the problem. This bill contains the structure to "nudge" (as Marxist Cass Sunstein puts it) every person in the United States to conform to government approved behavior spanning lifestyle choices from food to use of firearms, from exercise to choice of medical treatments. To put it bluntly, this bill, more than any other put forth by this out-of-control government, is about control. Big Brother will be dictating your health insurance . . . or else!

Today, the New Mexico Delegation to the Continental Congress 2009, led by Michael Lunnon--First Delegate, sent this Constructive Notice of Instruction to both New Mexico Senators--"Censorship" Bingaman, and Udall. It was written by Mr. Lunnon, of Gallup, and modeled after one by Rose Lear. It should be sent to every Senator and Congress Critter in the country.

Here it is:

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO OF 1913
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. [Supreme law of the land.]
The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

Sec. 2. [Popular sovereignty.]
All political power is vested in and derived from the people: all government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.

Sec. 3. [Right of self-government.]
The people of the state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state.

Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(EXCERPT)

[Amendment I][Freedom of Religion, of Speech, and of the Press]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sec. 3. [Admission of New States, Territory and Other Property]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. (emphasis added)

To: Senator Jeff Bingaman, (202) 224-5521, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

T0: Senator Tom Udall, (202) 224-6621 http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=home

Dear Senators Bingaman and Udall,

It is my understanding from the news reports that you are scheduled to vote in this Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am. I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, you must vote no or you will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government");

Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) ("It is important also to bear in mind that 'direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.' Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.")

Oregon v. Ashcroff, 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.'

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine, 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulative penalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state's laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished.

United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 402 , 36 S. Ct. 658, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854. Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government. And we accept as established doctrine that any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power, but solely to the achievement of something plainly within power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. (Emphases added)

Feel free to use this as a model for you own Notice. If you hurry, your senators may get it before they vote!

Long Live the Constitution of the United States!

CC 2009: Articles of Freedom Preamble

The Preamble of the Articles of Freedom along with an interview with CC2009 President, Michael Badnarik, now available at the CC2009 Website.

Here is the Preamble. This was an entirely different draft than that which was first proposed. This one was approved because it stated the same information, but in a much shorted and stirring style. Enjoy!

Articles of Freedom of Continental Congress 2009 November 21, 2009.

In defense of a free people, the time has come to reassert our God-given natural rights and cast off tyranny.

Let the facts reveal - the Federal Government of the United States of America, which was instituted to protect the rights of individual citizens, instead - threatens our life, liberty and property through usurpations of the Constitution; and emboldened by our own lack of responsibility and due diligence in these matters, has exceeded its mandate, and abandoned those founding principles which have made our nation exceptional;

Our servant government has undertaken these unconstitutional actions in direct violation of their enumerated duties, to the detriment of the People's liberty and the sovereignty of our Republic;

Over many years and spanning multiple political administrations, the People who have, in good conscience, attempted to deliberate our grievances and voice our dissent against these offensive actions through both petition and assembly, have been maligned and ignored with contempt;

The people of the several States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, justly alarmed at these arbitrary and unconstitutional actions, have elected, constituted and appointed delegates to meet, and sit in general Congress in the city of St. Charles, Illinois. Whereupon these delegates, as duly elected representatives of the several States, have gathered in defense of divine justice, liberty and the principles of limited government, and we stand in clear recognition of the supreme law of the land - the Constitution of the United States of America.

Therefore, We demand that Government immediately re-establish Constitutional rule of law, lest the People be forced to do so themselves; and we hereby serve notice that in the defense of Freedom and Liberty there shall be NO COMPROMISE to which we shall ever yield.

CC2009: Here There Be Dragons

Note: A week ago today we completed our last deliberations concerning the Articles of Freedom, a title only agreed upon late Saturday afternoon, November 22, 2009, and held our closing ceremonies, including a signing ceremony for the Preamble, the Civic Action Statement, and the Pledge of Commitment. A week is not enough time to fully digest what we did there and what was accomplished, so this is only a beginning. The documents refered to below are yet to be published.

• Participating in the Continental Congress 2009 as a delegate was in equal measure intense and frustrating, powerful and ultimately affirming. The intensity was so great that during the Congress the outside world receded, and the everyday news took a backseat to our deliberations concerning more fundamental Constitutional issues. And since New Mexico first delegate Michael Lunnon and I drove there and back again, that bubble of intensity continued to a lesser extent until I arrived home on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. Thus I have spent the past five days not only preparing and celebrating Thanksgiving, but also in an uneven and still incomplete struggle to re-engage with my previous everyday life. It has only just begun to dawn on me that the maps of my previous everyday life will have to be redrawn; that the terms of the re-engagement must expand to become a new normal. On the map of my life as I understand it, I have pushed the boundaries out into an unknown labeled "Here there be Dragons."
  
  
  Going into the Continental Congress I understood my role as delegate differently, perhaps, than some of the other delegates. I went knowing that the elections we held drew very few voters, and those chiefly from the New Mexico patriot community, those already awakened to the de facto demise of the Constitution of the United States over the past hundred years. Therefore, I understood that as a delegate I was not going to CC2009 to represent my state in a legislative sense, but rather to represent those who had voted for and/or financially supported our delegation, as well as to try to the best of my ability to bring to the Congress an understanding of Constitutional violations as they affect New Mexico, which like any state, has unique interests and concerns vis-a-vis the federal government. Therefore, I understood that at this juncture, my importance and the importance of the Congress was (and is) modest.
  
  
  This sense was of great benefit to me when the fear factor of taking on the system became real to the body of the Continental Congress. I understood that unless and until we build a mass movement, we will not be considered a real threat to anyone. Therefore, as the rumor mills got going among some of the more volatile delegates and their coalitions, I held firmly to the meaning of R3volution: we do this out of our love for liberty, not out of fear or anger.
  
  
  Secondly, I did not go to the Congress with any personal agenda that I intended to push. Rather, I went with the rationale and purpose for which this Continental Congress was called: to document to a candid world that petitions for redress of grievances had been made and gone unanswered; to document the ongoing violation of the Constitution in the instances that the petitions addressed; and to develop peaceful but firm civic responses to be taken upon the gathering of a mass movement in order to bring a rebellious servant government to heel. As I understood it, the first two items were the primary work of the Congress convened, whereas gathering a mass movement would be our job and the job of the various patriot alliances once the Articles of Freedom were written and signed.
  
  
  Even before the 2009 Continental Congress convened, however, it became apparent that there were individuals and factions who did not intend to come to achieve the agenda laid out by the We the People Foundation and We the People Congress, but that had their own agenda. Some were coming with the view that the Constitution was already null and void, and thus that the Petitions for Redress were futile and that the Congress should take an entirely different approach. Others were coming with the intention of getting the Congress to agree that the United States does in fact have an established religion, a certain form of Fundamentalist Christianity, and thus were pushing a Dominionist agenda. However, as a pre-Congress survey made clear, the vast majority of the delegates agreed with the agenda of the organizing body, We the People Foundation.
  
  
  As it became clear when the Congress actually convened, even though the majority of the delegates agreed on the purposes of the Congress, and upon the agenda adopted without change on the first day, there was plenty of difference about the outcomes and the civic actions that ought to be undertaken. Although many of us agreed with the groundwork already completed by We the People Foundation regarding the Petitions for Redress, there was a general sense apparent in the first deliberations on Thursday November 12 that the timeline and actions laid out by We the People were too conservative given the rapidity with which our constitutional republican form of government is now being dismantled.
  
  
  During the first week of the Congress, from Nov. 12 - Nov. 18, the body settled into an exacting routine in which we would hear expert testimony on one Petition for Redress first thing in the morning and another first thing in the afternoon. After each presentation, we would retire to the New Orleans Ballroom in order to deliberate upon the testimony and--at least according to the agenda--determine the answers to the following general questions:
  
  
  
• was the particular petition addressing a real violation of the Constitution?
• if so, what are particular Articles and/or amendments violated?
• was the petition unanswered?
• if so, what instructions should the people send to the federal government (Congress and Executive) to make them accountable? What instructions to the states for them to assert their sovereignty in the matter? What civic actions should be suggested to the the people for them to assert their power and sovereignty?

The first few days of deliberations were more difficult than I expected at the time. It became quickly apparent that the majority of delegates had very little experience with parliamentary process. It was also clear that a sizable minority of delegates had not received a thorough education in matters constitutional, and that many were hearing some of these petitions and their background for the first time. Even with these impediments, I thought that the body of the Congress would "gel" in a few days, and that we would see actual documents emerging, as everyone gained experience and understanding. And to a limited extent this did begin to happen, especially after sub-committees were established to write reports based upon the above general questions, which were made more specific to each Petition in the actual CC2009 Agenda .

But even with rules changes and an increased ability to use Robert's Rules of Order on the part of the delegations, I noticed that certain people tended to "camp out" at the microphone, and that there seemed to be determined core group(s) that used procedure to actually subvert the will of the body. Some of them seemed to be pushing specific agendas that were not that of the group, some seemed to be loose coalitions, but by far the most worrisome were a few individuals who seemed to foment division by espousing different sides of issues at different times, inconsistent to any personal or group agenda. This was different from what I observed of other groups and factions, which were consistent over time.

I believe that this one small group of infiltrators had the intention of discrediting CC2009 and used the passions of some of the other factions to try and make it happen. Additionally, and more unforgivably, this small faction appeared to use some delegates who had unstable personalities to achieve this purpose. In my opinion, this was the cause of much of the drama that occurred during the Congress.

That drama, along with the intensity of our days, and the immensity of what we were learning about the destruction of our liberty, created an edge to our deliberations. It heightened our passion to have the perfect solutions mapped out with respect to instructions to our servant government and to the States, and later when we began to write the Articles themselves, our recommendations for civic action for the people. The problem was that among 113 strong-minded individuals, there was nearly the same number of "perfect" solutions.

In order to deal with this, most of us tended toward finding like-minded individuals for discussion and support. I found Libertarians and libertarian-minded people whose understanding of the problem and whose principled solutions resonated with me, and from whom I could learn when my own analysis failed me. Thus my mind was engaged by the ideas of our President, Michael Badnarik, the anarcho-capitalist John Bush, and the scholar Jon Roland. I also had invigorating conversations with some of the young people who were just discovering libertarian ideas and the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I did speak up at the Congress, but not being one to camp out on the microphone queue, I spent far more time listening, thinking and in private discussion. I also worked on several committees, and as the secretary for the General Welfare Clause committee, I made my proudest contribution word-smithing both the primary and the ancillary reports. I also got to the microphone a few times during open discussion, and once I helped stop a change of language amendment that would have made us look foolish by changing the name of the Department of Homeland Security. I was also among those of an impromptu coalition that got the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIP) into the final document.

I saw that among my fellow delegates there were many moments in which personal prejudices and individual agendas led to public or private statements inconsistent with their own avowed principles. Some of these were religious in nature, as were certain efforts to impose the dogmas of specific religions upon the Congress and the people of the United States in what I call the "Christian nation" claim. Others involved prejudices against certain groups of American citizens, such as the denial of private property rights to Native Americans on the reservation, in what I call the paternalistic "white man's burden" claim. There were others, and for my part, I know I did not think deeply enough about the Mann Amendment that was passed without debate at the end of the Congress when many delegates were out of the room. I concurred with Ron Mann that the language was suitably non-sectarian, but I did not enter into a dialogue about the vote with my delegation.

Despite the drama, the inconsistencies in principle, and the personal and factional agendas--that is, despite the very human nature of those of us assembled--the Congress did accomplish the intended goals: to develop a series of instructions to Congress, to the States, and recommendations to the people, with respect to Petitions for Redress of Grievances. They included those dealing with the First Amendment right to petition, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the War Powers clause, the misuse of the "General Welfare" clause and the right to private property. Even those reports and recommendations that seemed "obvious" to some of us met with strongly passionate debate that served to increase the understanding of many of us, and also heightened our commitment to liberty.

And at the last our trust and reliance upon the honor and the integrity of those who will be charged with the style and formatting of all of the documents made it possible for many of us to sign the Preamble and Pledge sections of the document. And since those who signed were present as each tiny pearl of agreement was wrested from contention, we all understand both the frailty and magnitude of what we accomplished.

I stood in the line to sign after the closing ceremony, laughing from the relief of finishing the document together, even though it was imperfect. I felt light, and thought: "This is what freedom feels like." And then, as I stood with the pen in my hand in front of the Zia Flag, I felt the gravity of the moment. Putting my hand to that Preamble and that Pledge, I suddenly knew, meant that my personal maps of reality would change. Here there be Dragons!

In the end, the magnitude of our accomplishment will depend upon our ability to persuade our fellow patriots--those who already passionately uphold the principles of liberty and who espouse the idea of unalienable rights derived from the Eternal Source of Liberty (however we conceive that Source. It will depend upon our engendering a mass movement of liberty among those who are ready to sign on to holding our servant government accountable to the founding principles of the United States as declared in our Declaration of Independence and as prescribed for government in the Constitution.

In the end, the frailty of what we have accomplished can only be obviated on the uncertain road ahead, the journey upon which will require us to expand our own personal maps across the parted seas where there be dragons, and which will lead us from the security of the fleshpots of Mitzrayim—the Hebrew word for Egypt that means the Narrow Places--and into the vast unknown lands that can, if we let them, develop in us principles that will lead us to trust a mixed multitude of ways for all of us to live liberty.

At this moment, as I stand on the edge of my known world, straining to see beyond the Dragons, I believe that those who endured the labors of the Continental Congress to the end have developed a strong and enduring bond. And this bond has the strength to be shared with all who love liberty and which will withstand the storms and squalls of the voyage yet to come.

Edited Once for Grammar and Content. EHL