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.

Serving the Articles of Freedom

In your State Capitol, and in other cities, the delegates to the Continental Congress 2009 and other representatives and leaders of We the People, will be serving the Articles of Freedom:





Be there! Or be a slave!

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: The Articles of Freedom

On 23 December 1776 Thomas Paine published his pamphlet The Crisis in which he said:

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

Two-hundred and thirty-three years later, we find ourselves once again with a government that has declared that it "has the right not only to TAX but to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER". The Tyrant marches among us again, this time usurping power from We the People through election fraud, the making of unconstitutional legislation and by excessive use of the Treasury Department printing presses in order to enslave us once again.

For two weeks in November, delegates to the Continental Congress 2009 met together in St. Charles Illinois to determine what the next step of a Free People might be, seeing that all of our petitions for redress of grievance have gone unanswered. I was a delegate to that Congress, and I am proud to have played a small part in the product of that assembly.

Yesterday evening, 23 December 2009, two hundred thirty-three years to the day of Tom Paine's The Crisis, The Articles of Freedom: The Work of the Continental Congress 2009 was released for publication. The Preface of the Articles reads:

Across many administrations and years, by each branch of government, through each major political party, the Constitution for The United States has been violated. The People have formally Petitioned the Government for Redress of the violations in the most humble of terms. The People and their Petitions have been ignored. Each un-remedied violation has taken its toll with dire impact on our economic interests, our people, our quality and way of life and our international and national reputations.

We hold this Truth to be Self- Evident:

Any action, by any branch of the Government, that is
repugnant to the Constitution, is null and void.

On November 11, 2009, and for eleven days continuing morning, noon and night, Citizens of America gathered in St. Charles, Illinois, as Delegates from each of forty-eight States, to discuss these violations, and Government‟s refusal to be held accountable, and to recommend a course of action to restore Constitutional Obedience in a Constitutional Republic now challenged to Its core. These were not professional legislators, wordsmiths or attorneys.
These were ordinary, non-aligned citizens from across America and all walks of life. They set aside their lives for this Assembly. They represent You and Me, the Free People of America.

The conclusion of their efforts is This Document called
"Articles of Freedom."

It is proposed that these Articles be distributed to All in the Land with the
intent to draw the attention and courage of a “goodly number of millions of
People” who, entitled to their Freedom and essential to Its maintenance,
Arise to Restore the Constitution for the United States of America.

Then and only then shall America's Destiny be Fulfilled.

Now it is up to the Free People of the United States. Are you a winter soldier and an all-weather patriot? Do you understand that heaven prices Liberty dearly, and are you ready to pay the price to restore the Republic? If so, gentle reader, go to the link above or here and read the whole of the Articles of Freedom. And consider if what is expressed there make you willing to engage in non-violent civic action in order to call the rogue government in Washington D.C. to account for the long chain of abuses and usurpations it has engaged in against the People and the Constitution that we ordained and established in 1787.

And as you read, consider that we, the citizen-delegates, and our administrative team, are not by any stretch of the imagination, near to the greatness of our Founders. The writing is ours and not theirs, the editing is imperfect, and there are uncaught errors; and yet I believe that the Spirit of '76, their Spirit, shines through it, despite our lack of eloquence and our errors.

Thomas Paine concluded The Crisis by saying:

"Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to [the one] that breaks the compact . . . I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.

I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. . ."

Are you a Patriot? Prove it. Act to protect and defend our Great Charter of Liberty, the Constitution of the United States.In the Articles of Freedom, you will see our present situation described well. And reason will be brought to your ears. And there is a way out of it. When we hang together as mutual defenders and protectors of the Constitution of the United States, we shall see no cause for fear.

CC2009: Finding Common Spiritual Ground

As we, the citizen-delegates, have returned home from St. Charles, IL and the Continental Congress, the road ahead has begun to be laid out before us. And we have been in constant communication with one another via secure communication channels, in order to lay out the maps of that road, and plan the work. For the Congress, and the soon to be released Articles of Freedom are not the culmination of our work; rather, they are the foundation and guidebook for the restoration of Constitutional governance for the Republic of the United States.

Part of the work we are engaged in now is making sense of the profound experience we all had at CC2009 and to integrate into our lives where we are now. The intensity of it is hard to describe, but many delegates called it an "emotional roller coaster", and many of us bonded as people do when they confront such an experience together.


For me, that bonding continues as I reach out to the "other Christians" who were present at CC2009. These are the ones, probably the majority, who are not 'dominionists" in any sense, and who are sure enough of their own faith that they do not have to impose their particular theology on others. Therefore I was delighted when a thread appeared at the delegates' secure site that addressed the issue of the loud but few Christians whose agenda at the Congress seemed to be less about defending the Constitution and more about calling those of other faiths "blasphemers" and "infidels."


Part of the discussion at this threat has been an exchange of letters between the loudest dominionist (whom I have discussed but who shall remain nameless here) and two or three other Christian delegates, who have taken great exception to his presumption in speaking for G-d and for them. They wrote with great passion about the depth of free religious expression they witnessed at CC2009, and they also wrote that they saw all of the delegates (with the exception of a very few) place their personal agendas to side in order to focus on "the higher purpose" for which we gathered. I was so taken with the vision of these "other Christians" that I responded on the same thread. Here is my response about the blessings that we had all observed at CC2009. (When I refer to the the chief dominionist, I shall call him Mr. I. For someone who thinks he has cornered the market on G-d, is certainly an idolater).

Response at "Good Grief Department" Thread, CC2009

Thank you for your vision of CC2009. Although my religious expression is completely different from either of yours, I, too, saw a good deal of free religious expression at CC2009. Some of it was too much for me, or too narrowly focused, and so I left the room several times. However, my expression of my religious liberty neither stifled nor ended the religious expression of others.

With my own contributions to CC2009 of well over a month's salary, I helped support the use of a room for a Christian Chapel, a place in which my prayers would not have been welcome by the likes of Mr. I; I did not complain and neither did I withdraw my support. I simply prayed in my own room, as was appropriate for me.

"These are the obligations without measure, whose reward,too is without measure, and the fruits of which may be eaten either in this world or the world to come . . ." There is no need for one’s piety to be seen for it to be rewarded. The fruit that ripens with time is the sweetest to taste.

Mr. I appears to have had a fit of pique because he was unable to impose his religious expression on those of us who disagree with his theology. But his viewpoint was amply aired by him, and by others. If Mr. I's religious expression was found wanting by some of us, surely that is his own problem, and does not reflect badly on the Congress itself.

In my experience, there was plenty of blessing to be had at CC2009, and those who were unable to see it because that blessing did not appear in the form they demanded are to be pitied; they have eyes, but are unable to see the Eternal Presence in those human beings who are not like themselves.

Our Rabbis taught: "Great is the Eternal Master of the Universe. For an earthly king puts the stamp of his likeness on every coin of the realm, and all those coins are alike. The Eternal Creator, however, has placed within each human being the Divine Image and Likeness, and yet no two human beings are the same."

It is upon us to rejoice forevermore at the myriad facets of divine understanding and wisdom we learn from each individual, each as unique as the snowflakes that fall upon the mountains in winter, and yet all of which together cannot express the infinity that is the Eternal Creator of the Universe.

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

A Trifle Late, But Nearly Wordless Indeed . . .

NEARLY WORDLESS WEDNESDAY

It is the eve of Thanksgiving, the most American of holidays. One upon which a productive people stops to give thanks for the fruit of its labor. And so, in the midst of baking pies, roasting the turkey, and getting the cranberry sauce to jell in the saucepan, I bring you a very nearly wordless Wednesday.

The Tower at Pheasant Run: the place many delegates called home during the 12 days of the Continental Congress 2009.

Heated discussion at the lectern. All the usual suspects present: L-R: Badnarik (TX) and Tebedo (CO)standing next to the Parlimentarian on the platform. Standing below, L-R: Mann (ID), Dodd (CO) and Cox (AK). The standing delegate with the dark curly hair is Kostrick (NH), famous for being armed at an Obama rally.

Deliberating. We see quite a few of the delegates seated with their state delegations. The tables were arranged according to the order of the States entry into the Union. New Mexico, 47th, was seated in the last row.

Caucusing under the American Revolution II flag. Our patriots are every bit as individualistic, strong-minded and stubborn as were those of the first American Revolution, but we stand upon their shoulders in so many ways nonetheless.

I carry the Zia Flag of the Sovereign State of New Mexico out of the room during the closing ceremonies. Arizona (48), to the left ,is ready to follow.

Follow the red car with the Ron Paul bumper sticker in the window! On to the End the Fed Rally! We're at the end of the Dan Ryan Expressway, about to enter Congress Parkway in Chicago. Congress Parkway begins as we drive under the Chicago Stock Exchange building.

CC2009: Like a Pinhead Pearl Prized from a Dragon Oyster

I love my country.
And in my heart, I think I would die for the principle of a republican form of government.
But, oy vey ist mir!
Must we argue every word and comma?
And must we bring up issues calculated to divide the body beyond reconciliation?

I guess we must.

But I am reminded once more Marge Piercy's Poem, Report from the Fourteenth Subcommittee on the Formation of a Discussion Group. As you read, note that "when the Pliocene gathers momentum and fades" is not even about the deliberations of the discussion group, but rather about the motion to form one.

Piercy writes in part:

This is how things begin to tilt into change,
how coalitions are knit from strands of hair,
of barbed wire, twine, knitting wool and gut,
how people ease into action arguing each inch,
but the tedium of it is watching granite erode.

Right now we are arguing about reconsidering a change of a word: government to governance. I know that words are important and that law is built on words, and I believe that we should be concerned about them. And yet, and yet . . .
"the tedium of it is watching granite erode."

Our founders were wise. They understood that their own version of Robert's Rules would make the deliberations of our governing bodies inefficient. And they wanted it that way.

But, oh, it is so hard on those of us who grow weary of the grandstanding of would-be orators, those who do not read before they amend, and even (G-d forgive me) the careful reasoning of scholars.

The Body becomes restive and the groaning and gnashing of teeth increases. We shift our bodies, flex our knuckles, mutter under our breaths. Cups are slammed and foreheads are rubbed. Another ice age will come and go and we will sigh in frustration.

"We are evolving into molluscs, barnacles
clinging to wood and plastic, metal and smoke
while the stale and flotsam-laden tide of rhetoric
inches up the shingles and dawdles back.
This is true virtue: to sit here and stay awake,

to listen, to argue, to wade on through the muck
wrestling to some momentary small agreement
like a pinhead pearl prized from a dragon-oyster.
I believe in this democracy as I believethere is blood in my veins, but oh, oh, in me

lurks a tyrant with a double-bladed ax who longs
to swing it wide and shining, who longs to stand
and shriek, You Shall Do as I Say, pig-bastards!
No more committees but only picnics and orgies
and dances. I have spoken. So be it forevermore."
From Mars and Her Children by Marge Piercy

My inner tyrant is pushing against the chains. But I will keep her firmly in hand.

Our founders wanted it this way.

Going to Continental Congress: Sedillo to St. Charles

NEARLY WORDLESS WEDNESDAY

On Monday, New Mexico Delegate Michael Lunnon and I began the drive from Gallup (in Michael's case) to St. Charles. Michael stopped to get me on a warm and sunny Sedillo fall morning, the kind with the New Mexico blue sky that breaks the heart. We drove 14 hours on Monday, finally stopping in Springfield, Missouri just past midnight Tuesday morning. Yesterday, we drive about eight hours from Springfield, MO to St. Charles, Illinois.

But I still had time to take a few pictures . . .

Looking north just east of Milagro, NM.

Pinyon-juniper woodlands and shortgrass prairie, near the ecotone where, as we descend east, the trees will give way to the grasslands.

At the rest stop west of Santa Rosa, NM, a red-rock canyon composed of brilliant shales, as we descend into the Pecos River Valley.

Rio Grande Valley. Pecos Valley. Later the Canadian. As we go eastward, each river valley will be lower by thousands of feet than the last, as we drive down the incline of the alluvium from the Rockies and Basin and Range.







Grain elevator east of Amarillo on the Texas Panhandle.
We had driven into a frontal system, clouds and fog.

Texas Panhandle, just west of Oklahoma. It seems as flat and level as a table top, and it is indeed one massive mesa. But the slight incline away from the mountains to the west is not perceptible, although it is there. It is the alluvium and wind-blown detritis of the Rockies, fingers of which reach all the way to the Mississippi River.

We drove into the night in Oklahoma, talking and talking, learning to understand each other with respect to all of the issues that will be argued at the Continental Congress. We found ourselves to be sympatico.

In the morning, a water tower in Rolla, Missouri, on the east slopes of the Ozark Dome. Hardwood forests in these low, very old mountains: Maple, Walnut, Oak.





Bare tree on a hilltop west of St. Louis, where the Ozarks are interrupted by the Mississippi River.

They continue into Southern Illinois more weathered still at the edge of the dome; and in Kentucky and Tennessee, meeting the the Appalachians.

Across the 'Father of Waters' (not pictured--we could not pull over), in the coal and oil country of Southern Illinios, we stopped.

The flag is at half-staff to honor the fallen soldiers murdered in Texas. Tomorrow, on Veterans Day, we will renew our oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Woods and pond at a rest stop south of Springfield, Illinois. The clouds were closing in, and we drove through intermittent, heavy rain until it cleared from the west near Joliet, Illinois.

Every time I make this drive, I think about the vastness and diversity of the United States and the uniqueness of the North American Continent.

Stretching from Atlantic to Pacific, the geographic and geological diversity is stunning, as is the regional diversity of the people. An amazing place.

And a fitting way to enter into the frame of mind needed to do our part to restore the Constitution that creates out of that diversity fifty sovereign states, which together create these United States.

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

My Comments on the Religion Issue

The other day I posted a diatribe about how the issue of a common prayer or moment of silence at the daily convening of the Continental Congress has been hijacked by a few Fundamentalist Christians for whom, it has become clear, the agenda of the Congress itself has begun to play second-fiddle to their need to have a camp meeting every day. Toward the beginning of the discussion, I was naive enough to post the comment below. To be strictly fair, only one person made any insulting comment to the Fundamentalists, and that was a matter of perspective, since to my eye, the reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster was tongue-in-cheek. But it set them off, so I included both. Here is the comment:


"The insults written above, hurled equally at believers and non-believers alike, are painful to read, and must be more so for those at whom they are aimed. I do not believe that they reflect the G-d of the believers nor the reason of the non-believers. It appears as if strong emotions rather than reason have too quickly held sway when some of us find that others of us do not agree with one another in every particular.

I, too, was told that CC2009 was not the province of one or a few Christian denominations, and yet I understand the need for those who are believers in the Christian understanding of the Eternal to find a way to secure the blessing of their religion upon their work. (I share the same need but not the same theology). I believe that this can be done with all the due denominational requirements at morning chapel, and then a more general blessing for the peace and prosperity of the United States and a restoration of the Constitution be done in full assembly.

In Hebrew, the word "Amen" comes from the verb root "agree" or "stand with." It would be very respectful of the assembly as a whole towards the differing faith traditions and lack thereof, to allow for a prayer or blessing or meditation that everyone assembled can say "Amen" to, without feeling that he or she is betraying the foundations of his or her faith or lack thereof.

If such is agreed upon, this does not stifle the speech of those with more specific beliefs, as they have the opportunity for it in their own remarks from the floor (within the strictures of the agenda) and in debate and discussion with others. But in a situation in which a prayer or blessing is offered upon the whole assembly, it is reasonable to expect it to reflect the whole assembly, and our respect, as those who love Liberty, for the individual differences among its members.

Certainly, those of us who follow religious traditions have habitual expressions that may be uttered with no intent at offense to others. Therefore, if we all agree to respect one another and to refrain from forcing our specific theologies upon the assembly, then we must also all agree to assign only the kindest motives to those who use those religious expressions in their daily language.

If the world is indeed watching us, I believe we should do our best to honor G-d and/or Reason by our love for one another and our ability to Live Liberty through the understanding and forbearance we show to one another.

Rabbi Hillel said:
"What is painful to you, do not do to your neighbor."
(A positive expression of the same idea is familiar to many Christians as "The Golden Rule.")

To have a certain religious expression with which I cannot agree, and which makes me betray the ancient tenants of my faith, imposed upon me without option to leave is painful to me. Therefore, I do not wish to impose the same upon my neighbors at CC2009.

Certainly, if the fact that I am not a Christian, and therefore (along with others who are Christian) do not profess a certain narrow part of the range of Christian beliefs means that I do not belong at CC2009, as claimed by a certain Christian above, then I respectfully suggest that obtaining a mass movement of American citizens from all walks of life to agree to the actions proposed by this Congress will fail.

This is something for the delegates to consider as well . . .

Most of what I said above was predictably ignored by the Camp Meeting crowd, because, well it was about the larger picture and really did not give them a chance to grandstand the superiority of their rather narrow version of Christianity among themselves. Then a number of comments were made in which those of us who would rather not see the entire convened assembly subjected to a sectarian prayer are "progressives", "communists", and "rebelling against [the Fundy C's] god. At this point, I was still trying to reason with people who I now know are incapable of reason. I said:

"I am feeling some consternation at the lecture delivered to those who have responded to this thread. It looks as if responses are being made to misunderstanding or misreading of what has been said. Only one person here who has not already withdrawn has threatened to withdraw should he not get his way in this matter of prayer, and that is Mr. _______. I may be mistaken, as I have other responsibilities that have interfered with keeping up with the discussion, but I have not seen one person threaten to withdraw from the delegation if a prayer IS offered.

As for me, what I said is that I would find a way to quietly and unobtrusively leave the room if the prayer is denominational; that is, a prayer that excludes me or others from being able to give agreement because of a specific expression of theology. My personal beliefs would allow me to say “amen” to a prayer to a Creator, but certainly not to the Christian trinity or any messiah or saint. Others may have difficulty with even a general prayer to a Creator. At first, thinking only of my own beliefs, I thought that such a general prayer would be good, but now, having read the concerns of others, I have changed my mind and advocate a moment of silence so that no one will be excluded.

What is the social purpose of public prayer and ceremony? It is to unite the group involved in common and solemn purpose. When such “civic religion” takes place, if some members are excluded because a majority insists on an overly specific statement of belief, then the purpose of the action becomes divisive and the overall purpose is not fulfilled. The ritual becomes meaningless at best, and at worst may project a false sense of conformity. The ethics that some people hold will not permit them to participate in it, and that is why even some who do hold various religious beliefs are made uncomfortable by it.

The United States today is far less homogeneous with respect to religion than it was in 1774. And even then, the founders demonstrate certain prejudices towards certain Christian sects (such as Roman Catholicism) as well as towards agnostics and atheists, that must have been divisive even in that day, given that Maryland was a Roman Catholic settlement and that other individuals may have been deists, agnostics, and atheists.

I believe that accusing anyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint of “being childish”, weak or overly sensitive is an insult intended to enforce conformity. It is a bully tactic, and whether conscious or not, projects an air of superiority towards those who have real and principled concerns not shared by the speaker (or in this case, the writer).

Finally, with respect to the accusation of censorship: governments are able to censor and private individual are not. Censorship is an official action. And it is specific to a context. For example, it is not censorship for a presiding officer to remind a speaker on the floor to stick to an agreed upon agenda. It is not censorship for an organization to refuse to provide a platform for speech that does not meet with its purpose. It is not censorship for an individual to choose not to publish something with which he does not agree in a privately owned newspaper or blog. And it is not censorship for members of an elected body to request that the proceedings of that body include all members and are in concert with its overall purpose. Finally, it is not censorship for such a person to exercise his prerogative to politely leave a public prayer service that is being offered as a part of the official proceedings but excludes some members.


It was after this response that a new voice, a pastor, entered the fray. At first glance his words sounded reasonable, until upon closer reading, I realized that he was actively defining anyone who would disagree with an overtly Christian prayer upon the convened assembly as "non-believers" and therefore, in his mind, second-class citizens. However, it was a post he wrote a few days later that really revealed his mindset--one that, as we shall see tomorrow, is very close to that of the Christian Dominionists. In my next blog entry, I will discuss the issue it brought up and my final response of any length to that so-called discussion.

Continental Congress: "I Am Going to Congress"

During my preparations for going to the Continental Congress, the issue of prayer at the Congress has raised its ugly head. I say "ugly head" because there is a certain segment of what I would loosely call b . . . um, Fundamentalist Christians--probably in the minority--who wish to impose upon the full assembly a prayer ending in the name of their messiah, thus excluding anyone who is unable to assent to such a prayer. This is so even though the organizers of the Congress have very reasonably arranged to allow for Chapel time prior to the Congress convening each day, and have even taken a poll to see which religions would be present and are considering how to divide that chapel time. All of this so that a non-sectarian prayer or moment of silence may be done upon the full assembly.



Of course, I am in the extreme minority, as one of only a few (or one) Jews present, so I shall simply pray the morning service privately each day, and find a synagogue for Shabbat.



However, on the planning discussion boards quite a ruckus has been stirred over this issue. What is particularly ugly is that the Fundy C's (as my kid's dad calls them) have threatened to boycott the Congress altogether, disrupt the prayer to make it as they wish it, and many have taken to name-calling, questioning patriotism, and personal attacks on those of us who have been reasonable in presenting a different point of view.



Early in the discussion, a few young and brash libertarian atheists made some comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well, and the Fundy C's took it seriously, not knowing about this a parody that pokes fun at the divisions and religious animosity among Christians of various sects. This added fuel to their apparent distress.



Foolishly, I entered the fray. I believe that there is something written somewhere that Jews don't read that warns against the casting of pearls before swine. Naturally, lured to the prospect of a debate, I ignored the warning.I wrote several well reasoned essays about the issue arguing (in the academic sense) for a moment of silence. Perhaps I'll publish one of them later, edited of course to protect the identity of the religious fanatics. Here, at least, my pearls would not be wasted.



Personally, I could deal with a non-sectarian prayer to a "Creator", but the Fundy C's will allow nothing but that a proper hot-farting preacher should lay it on thick in the name of the Christian trinity. Particularly the number two spot. Never mind that even many Christians would be uncomfortable with that. It would be an exercise in allowing them to fantasize that the Founders were all Fundy C's. ( They weren't. Fundamentalism did not come onto the American scene until 1900.)



In any case, as I watched in dismay, all reasoned arguments were ignored or sidestepped, but the personal attacks and outright libels were directed at anyone who had the temerity to disagree with these few people. (And I do mean few. Maybe five?). It was ugly.



Last night as I was wondering about what I had gotten myself into --picture Elisheva in the Fundamentalists' Den--I got an e-mail from another wounded warrior of what we are now calling "the good fight." I had stopped posting my pearls, but some of the<> Christians were still making sure I got theirs by e-mail. As I read a post that was attempting to blame me and a few others for delegates choices to boycott, I realized these people are a very small fringe among all the delegates. They are unable to make a short, reasoned argument, but fall immediately into ad hominem attacks and other logical errors.



And then I thought about Abraham Lincoln. There's this great story about his first Congressional

run against a rather hot-farting revivalist preacher in 1846. It was in Sandburg's Lincoln. I could even see the page in my mind. So I looked it up and here it is:



“Cartwright in due time said, “All those who desire to give their hearts to God and go to heaven will stand.” A sprinkling of men, women and children stood up. The preacher exhorted, “All who do not wish to go to hell will stand.” All stood up—except Lincoln. Then Cartwright in his gravest voice: I observe that at my first invitation many stood up who desire to give their hearts to God and go to heaven. And I further observe that all of you save one indicated that you did not desire to go to hell. The sole exception is Mr. Lincoln who did not respond to either invitation. May I enquire of you, Mr. Lincoln, where you are going?”


“Lincoln slowly rose. “I came here as a respectful listener. I did not know that I was to be singled out by Brother Cartwright. I believe in treating religious matters with due solemnity. I admit that the questions propounded by Brother Cartwright are of great importance. I did not feel called upon to answer as the rest did. Brother Cartwright asks me directly where I am going. I desire to reply with equal directness: I am going to Congress.” So it was told.” (Sandberg, C. (1939)Lincoln: The Prairie Years. Harcourt, Inc.:Orlando, FL (p. 82).



I, like Lincoln, am going to Congress. This time the Continental Congress.

I am not going there to participate in a religious revival, but I am going to do some speaking.

Speaking in favor of the Constitution. That document of which the First Amendment says this:



"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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



I am going there to be part of a Congress called to deal with the last ten words; our charge is to outline the next steps for a Free People because the Federal Government has been engaged for the past 100 years in massive violations of its Constitutional powers.



And like Lincoln, I do not feel called upon to answer.

I don't feel called upon the make a statement of faith, or to help a small group of people fake reality by pretending that the United States has the established religion-Christianity; or even that everyone there is in agreement with their narrow view of theology and history.



I am going to Congress. I am not going to Heaven. I am not going to Hell and I'll be damned if I am paying to go to Chicago to go to Church.



Those grade school years of being a Lincoln fanatic have paid off. I read Sandburg's Lincoln and never forgot it.



So I'm going to Congress.