Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Timothy Baldwin - Plan for Freedom

Timothy Baldwin - Plan for Freedom

Ratings: (0)|Views: 401|Likes:
Published by Juan del Sur
In a recent article, radio talk-show host, columnist for the Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, Jeffrey Kuhner, asks the question, “Will America break up?” Kuhner is not the only intelligent and reasonable person asking this question and predicting its reality. Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian foreign affairs ministry, predicts that given the way the federal government handles its finances and given the unrecoverable deficit of the U.S., the U.S. is undoubtedly bound for “extinction in its present form,” not even mentioning the political, cultural, religious, moral and foreign-entanglement turmoil of the U.S.

The question is rightfully being asked more, and as such, the question should be defined and understood more precisely and constructively so that people are aware of what “breakup of America” really means.
In a recent article, radio talk-show host, columnist for the Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, Jeffrey Kuhner, asks the question, “Will America break up?” Kuhner is not the only intelligent and reasonable person asking this question and predicting its reality. Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian foreign affairs ministry, predicts that given the way the federal government handles its finances and given the unrecoverable deficit of the U.S., the U.S. is undoubtedly bound for “extinction in its present form,” not even mentioning the political, cultural, religious, moral and foreign-entanglement turmoil of the U.S.

The question is rightfully being asked more, and as such, the question should be defined and understood more precisely and constructively so that people are aware of what “breakup of America” really means.

More info:

categoriesBusiness/Law, Finance
Published by: Juan del Sur on Apr 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

06/04/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Timothy Baldwin – Plan for FreedomPage 1 of 5
Plan For Freedom
Author:
Timothy Baldwin, JD
Date: April 22, 2010
http://libertydefenseleague.com/2010/04/22/plan-for-freedom/
 
In a recent article, radio talk-show host, columnist for the Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, Jeffrey Kuhner, asks the question, “Will America break up?”[1] Kuhner is not the only intelligent and reasonable person asking this question and predictingits reality. Igor Panarin, a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian foreign affairsministry, predicts that given the way the federal government handles its finances and giventhe unrecoverable deficit of the U.S., the U.S. is undoubtedly bound for “extinction in itspresent form,”[2]not even mentioning the political, cultural, religious, moral and foreign-entanglement turmoil of the U.S.The question is rightfully being asked more, and as such, the question should be defined andunderstood more precisely and constructively so that people are aware of what “breakup of  America” really means.First, by “America,” we mean the United States of America comprised of fifty states under thepolitical association of the U.S. Constitution.Second, by “breakup,” we must determine if this is meant to be a negative or positive action.“Breakup” could mean collapse, destroyed, annihilated, etc., all of which would be construednegatively and thus rejected in theory by the readers. However, “breakup” could also meanindependent, separate, sovereign etc., all of which could be construed in a positive fashionand thus accepted in theory by the readers. Perspective is determinative here.Third, we must determine if the question refers to the people of the states in their individualcapacities as bodies-politic; the state governments as agents of the people under their stateconstitutions; and/or the federal government as created by the states under the U.S.Constitution. When one analyzes the foundations of society and government in the United States, theconclusion that the U.S. will “breakup” should not be surprising, considering the cycles of human history and experience, not to mention the study of political science. Thus, the
 
Timothy Baldwin – Plan for FreedomPage 2 of 5
question should be raised, “
should
the states breakup/secede/separate from the federalgovernment as formed under the U.S. Constitution, and if so,
in what manner
?”For better or worse, many in the United States have literally idolized the union of the UnitedStates, as formed under the U.S. Constitution from 1787 to 1791, during which time thirteenstates ratified the constitution separately and independently of each other. Suggesting thatthe United States “breakup” leaves a sense of shock in their minds and hearts, for they cannotimagine a life without a union of fifty states under the power and control of the federalgovernment. (The reasons for this are not subject to this discussion.)That the United States procured its sovereign and independent political and societal existencethrough secession from Great Britain–a breakup of its own–does not seem to enter into theirminds concerning a “breakup” of the United States in its current form. Some seem to think that if the union “as is” goes, so goes freedom, although history has proven otherwise. People with this mindset automatically conclude that “breakup” will be perpetually and everlastingly detrimental to freedom and that union as is must be preserved at all costs.“Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant? If this be the case you reston a weak basis; Americans are like other men in similar situations…[and] your posterity willfind that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce aCaesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Romanempire.”[3] However, many in America adamantly believe that the freedom and ideals fought for in 1776have been all but completely attacked and killed under oppressive control of the federalgovernment and the demoralization of society throughout the states over the past many generations–all the constitutions in America notwithstanding. They cannot reasonably foresee a restoration of freedom in their state through the political process in WashingtonD.C. under the current union, regardless of which political party controls the federalgovernment.Others are caught between two worlds that they either do not want or do not understand.So, can the states in America be more proactive in their planning to restore freedom? Orshould they wear their Kevlar helmets just waiting for the inevitable collapse and thenattempt to “rise from the ashes” during the chaos and God knows what else? America’s founding generation believed that a proactive approach to an obviously tyrannousgovernment (despite the existence of the greatest and freest constitution in the world at thattime) was necessary to preserve their freedom. They did not wait for the ashes and ruins tofall upon them through the natural consequences of ill-administered government. Instead,they used the tools of hindsight, insight and foresight to calculate the measure of theirsurvival and freedom. In that case, independence was necessary. A body of people gathered together to govern themselves (i.e. a body-politic/state) have anatural right to preserve, protect, perpetuate and perfect their existence. They are notmorally, constitutionally or ethically obligated to severely suffer more than if they had notentered into that particular society or that government in the first place. They have the power
 
Timothy Baldwin – Plan for FreedomPage 3 of 5
to govern themselves according to the principles derived from the very purpose of society andgovernment.The states are not obligated to wait until the hammer falls upon them, their families,communities, businesses and property before they have a right to act accordingly, just as ahusband does not have to wait for another man to actually rape his wife before he terminatesthe would-be rapist when the threat is apparent to the husband and wife.In fact, societies that wait too late rarely have the opportunity to restore freedom withoutimmense pain and suffering: they are mostly oppressed to the point of voluntary submissionto slavery. John Locke observes as well that self-government must happen sooner, rather thanlater: a preventative measure, not a reactionary measure:“This is in effect no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of theirliberty; and when their chains are on, tell them, they may act like freemen. This, if barely so,is rather mockery than relief; and men can never be secure from tyranny, if there be no meansto escape it till they are perfectly under it: and therefore it is, that
they have not only a rightto get out of it, but to prevent it
.”[4] Therefore, when that State sees the danger approaching or it recognizes its own enslavingconditions, it has every right to judge the situation as it discerns and to act accordingly. Theseare the principles expounded by our founders in the Declaration of Independence, and theseare the ideas expressed by western-world jurists before 1776, which equipped our founders forthe penning and signing of the Declaration of Independence. In essence, the thirteen coloniesprevented the inevitable collapse of freedom, security and happiness by preemptiveleliminating the source of their demise: their “central government” in Great Britain.Reconciliation would have been nice, perhaps; but freedom was nicer.Ultimately, where there are two competing fundamental notions of governance, one mustprevail and the other must fail. In a country as large and vast as the United States has become, this is very problematic when considering the fundamental maxims of freedomexpressed in the Declaration of Independence: the larger the territory and number of people,the less likely a republic will remain free. This was recognized by jurists and philosophers forhundreds of years before 1776: “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory,otherwise it cannot long subsist.”[5] Kuhner expresses the conflict this way: “We are no longer one nation or one people. Rather,there are now two Americas: one conservative, the other liberal. Increasingly, we no longer just disagree but we despise each other.”[6]In such an environment, freedom within a largeunion never remains. The consent of the governed becomes oppressed by those who do notshare their values, beliefs and morals. The union is held together not from the voluntary  bonds of likeness, similarity, loyalty and friendship, but from brute force.Human nature and experience prove that as a body of people or states regard their God-givenfreedom and rights as stolen or trampled and as “peaceful” political process effects norestoration of those freedoms and rights for generations, “breakup” is not only inevitable, it isnecessary. America’s founders believed the same: “[I]n the course of human events, it becomes
necessary 
for one people to dissolve the political bands.”[7] 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->