"Philosophy vs. Conspiracy"

by Jerry Salcido, CampaignForLiberty.com

Anyone who has worked in support of the liberty movement knows an unfortunate truth: it is all too often associated, rightly or wrongly, with "conspiracy theories" -- those all too often unsubstantiated, speculative viewpoints on various topics such as the assassination of JFK, the attempted assassination of Reagan, 9/11, the role of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds in modern world history, and the current doings of the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations. The problem is that liberty's enemies are very aware of this association as well and they use it to their advantage. Too often freedom's detractors slander the liberty movement as being filled with conspiracy nuts and other wackos.

But you know what? In this regard, the dissidents have a point. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

"What Is The U.S. Constitution?"

by Timothy Baldwin, TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.

1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

"Secession, the Second Amendment and Sun Tzu"

by Russell D. Longcore, DumpDC.com.

In the 6th Century BC, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War.” It has been the definitive treatise on waging war for 26 centuries now. Only thirteen chapters, it was translated first in 1782 when a French Jesuit priest living in China, Joseph Amiot, acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. Subsequent translations have honed the text into English...

...The general concept that I want you to take away from these verses is that in order to win many battles, you must keep your enemy off balance, deceived and confused about your strategies and tactics. If you can attack him at many weak points, he will have to respond, and therefore, you control both the location and the tempo of the battle. This will be important in the thoughts and questions below.

I’ve been writing lately about secession and the well-regulated militia, and how they should be inextricably tied to one another. From the reactions I’m receiving from readers, this concept seems to be somewhat new to them.

Specifically, I and other writers have referred to the truest meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

LBCCS Christmas Message

We at the Liberty Bell Center for Constitutional Studies would like to wish you all a very merry Christmas! As we continue in our pursuit of knowledge and liberty, may we always remember the Word that became flesh two thousand years ago and the true liberty that can only be found through Him.

Blessings to you all on this wonderful day,

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.

I Am a Classical Liberal

A friend asked me why I call myself a "Classical Liberal" rather than a "Reagan Conservative."

So I went ahead and explained to him in a nutshell what I meant:

Let me put it this way. When I hear "Reagan Conservative" I instantly think of massive, overbearing, intrusive government with a great big American flag plastered over the front of it. That is NOT me.

I am a classical liberal in the tradition of John Locke, many of our founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson in particular), Frédéric Bastiat and Ron Paul. A classical liberal believes in the God-given natural rights of human beings to life, liberty and property; and understands that the purpose of government is to protect those rights to the extent that we as individuals can not efficiently do it ourselves. Crime is the forceful violation of another person's rights and the only legitimate circumstance to deprive a person of any of their rights is in response to their unlawful deprivation of another person's rights. And in all cases, the punishment should match the offense plus with extra compensation to the victim. It is a very simple philosophy that leaves no room for large, overbearing government. And it is a philosophy right in line with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is worth pointing out that the Constitution only delegates 18 powers/responsibilities to Congress, then the Executive branch has the responsibility of faithfully executing those laws and the Judicial branch is supposed to watch and make sure all legislation fits within the confines of the Constitution and Natural Law. Very simple. If our federal government stuck to the Constitutional formula, it would be extremely small, in fact significantly smaller than any State government. Can you imagine that?!?! Oh, how far we have fallen!

In summary, as a classical liberal, I stand uncompromising in support of "the laws of nature and nature's God."

"What Is a Right?

By Andrew Napolitano, CampaignForLiberty.com.

". . . .What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process -- fairness -- from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights. . . ."

To read the entire article, click here.

Benjamin Franklin Quote

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

"The Progressive Era"

By William Anderson, CampaignForLiberty.com.

One of the most enduring set of myths from U.S. history comes from the political and social developments in what is called the "Progressive Era," a period lasting from the late 1800s to the end of World War I. (Of course, one could argue, convincingly, that the Progressive Era never has ended.) The prevailing story told in textbooks, the editorial pages of the New York Times, and the typical classroom holds that this was the time when people began to use the mechanism of government to create the conditions for a better life for all and to begin the arduous process of reining in the excesses of capitalism.

According to the pundits, by the late 1800s many businesses in the United States had grown to gigantic proportions, monopolizing much of the economy. In response to this growing emergency, the government adopted new and "progressive" policies of regulatory agencies and antitrust laws. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

The Declaration of Independence... on Leno?

A portion of the Declaration of Independence was featured on the Jay Leno show yesterday.

James Madison on the Ten Commandments

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

- James Madison

Charlton Heston - "From My Cold Dead Hands!"

"The Rights of the Colonists"

By Samuel Adams, 1772.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society...

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators...

In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

To read the entire piece, click here.

"The Founders' Message of Hope for Concerned Americans Today"

December 2009 Newsletter, from NCCS.net.

It was in this very month, 184 years ago, that the aged Thomas Jefferson took pen in hand and composed a message for all future Americans. Just eight months before he died, he had become alarmed at the obtrusiveness of the federal government upon the rights of the states and the people. He drafted a document to be adopted by the Virginia General Assembly entitled Declarations and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of them.

This great Founder had already noticed a beginning departure from the balanced, limited government of the Constitution, and so he wrote, "...the federal branch has assumed in some cases, and claimed in others, a right of enlarging its own powers by constructions, inferences, and indefinite deductions from those directly given, which this assembly does declare to be usurpations of the powers retained to the independent branches (states), mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of it.”

As though writing to all Americans in the present and future generations, Jefferson then explained why we should be willing to make any sacrifice necessary to correct this imbalance in order to make this great freedom experiment work. Said he:

"We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large, to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace. . . .

To read the entire newsletter, click here.

The Liberty Bell Center for Constitutional Studies
Presents
The Declaration of Independence
Educational Seminar

In the early 1600s, England planted their first feudal colonies in the New World. But unlike the men and women of Europe who endured this oppression for century after century, the American colonists were smitten with a thirst for liberty and rose up in opposition to the status quo and set in motion a chain of events that would lead to the year 1776 when the united States of America would declare their independence from the British empire!

LBCCS is excited to announce our brand-new educational seminar, The Declaration of Independence! Do not believe the progressive media and elites. As Ron Paul said, “This much is true, you have been lied to.” During this seminar, you will learn the

1. History

2. Philosophy

3. Lasting Significance

of the Declaration of Independence. You will understand the beginnings of the colonies and the true history of what led to the revolution. You will understand the philosophical principles that make up the heart of this foundational document. You will understand the lasting significance to you personally, to our nation in particular, and to the world as a whole! This is powerful stuff that can change the world.

For more information or to host an LBCCS seminar in your area, please contact:

Ryan Burgett - Chairman
484-553-0956
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com

"What Would Madison Do?"

by Michael Cummins, TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

In one of his final acts as president, James Madison did something almost unthinkable by modern standards: he vetoed a bill solely on Constitutional grounds.

President Madison agreed that it made sense to use federal funds for the construction or upgrade of vital roadways and canals within the states. But the Internal Improvements bill of 1817 was contradicted by a higher law, namely the absence of a concomitant enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Being among the Framers of our legal system, Madison understood that when two laws clash, the higher one wins out. True to his oath of office, he refused to challenge the Constitution by endorsing an invalid inferior statute.

Seeing this specific issue coming to the fore, Madison had a couple years earlier let Congress know exactly how everyone’s spending wishes could come to pass. He encouraged Congress to fire up the process for amending the Constitution. Given the substantial support that the notion of federal spending on infrastructure enjoyed, it seems likely that the states would have been willing to delegate such power to the federal government, if asked. Congress instead tried the easy route, in the vain hope that Madison was bluffing. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

John Locke on the Law and Man's Natural Right to Self Defense

"Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another."

To read more on this topic, click here.

We Must Take America Back

"An Ambigious Conservative - The Life and Thought of Edmund Burke"

By Edward Feser, from The American Conservative.

For some conservatives, the value of tradition lies in its tendency to reflect an eternal order, a natural law of which tradition is but an approximation. For others, long-established practices and institutions are valuable because they provide the stability societies need for their well-being. The first sort of conservative is liable to advocate a departure from tradition if it too imperfectly reflects the natural law. The second is more likely to favor preserving tradition, even when this might entail a compromise on moral principle, in the interests of maintaining continuity with settled expectations and respect for precedent. Whereas conservatism of the first sort often rests on a robust metaphysical conception of human nature and systematic moral theory, the second type is commonly associated with skepticism about the possibility of metaphysical and moral knowledge.

Edmund Burke is interesting for many reasons, but perhaps chief among them is that he appears to straddle this divide between conservatisms. On the one hand, he clearly regarded those traditions he sought to preserve as deriving from a divine order to which we are duty bound to submit ourselves. On the other hand, he was highly suspicious of abstract theory of any sort. The essays in Ian Crowe’s important new anthology reflect this tension and thereby illustrate how the conflicts that often arise among contemporary conservatives may well have their origin in the thinking of their common spiritual father. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

"Law Is A Negative Concept"

Excerpt from "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat, 1850.

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?

To read more, click here.

What is a classical liberal?

As Ron Paul put it, "This much is true, you have been lied to." The political establishment has re-written history and changed the meaning of age-old terms in a plot to control the lives its citizens. In For A New Liberty, the 20th century's greatest intellectual libertarian, Murray Rothbard, takes the first chapter to cut through the lies and present the political history of the US as it really was. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute has made this book available in both MP3 and PDF formats for anyone interested. Below I have a link to the audio of the first chapter in MP3 format. Please open it directly or download it because this is ESSENTIAL information that every American needs to know. But beware, it has the potential to turn much of what you have thought upside down.

http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/1.mp3

"Principles of Liberty in our Founding Documents"

From NCCS.net, November Newsletter.

Those who are familiar with the 28 Principles of Liberty outlined in The 5000 Year Leap, are acquainted with the claim that these are the principles upon which the Founders based our new government, thereby assuring us of lasting peace , prosperity, and freedom. Occasionally the question is asked, “Where can we find these principles in our founding documents?” This letter will help the reader make that connection.

First, however, one point needs to be made clear. There is a notion today that the Declaration of Independence is not really a part of American jurisprudence and that the principles contained therein cannot be referred to as a basis of American law. This line of thought is usually concluded by saying that if a principle cannot be found in the Constitution, such as a belief in a Creator, it is not part of American culture or law. This idea is blatantly false. The Declaration of Independence has been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America . (See John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution , pages 360-362)

The following, then, are some of the ways in which the 28 Principles of Liberty were emphasized as the Founders structured our government. . . .

To read the entire newsletter, click here.

What Is America's True Form Of Government?

"Traitors to the American Revolution"

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

The American Revolution was waged against a highly centralized, nationalistic governmental tyranny run by a king, namely, the British Empire. The king enriched himself and his regime through the economic institution of mercantilism, defined by Murray Rothbard as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” This system impoverished the average Englishman but was a perpetual source of power and riches for the king and his political allies. That is why the system lasted so long (at least two centuries) despite the fact that it was so harmful to the average citizen.

After the Seven Years War with France the king of England needed to pay off his war debts, so he stepped up the application of the corrupt mercantilist system to the American colonists. He did so with numerous taxes and interferences with international trade that benefited British businesses and the British state while treating the colonists like tax serfs. The “train of abuses” delineated in the Declaration of Independence were mostly abuses of the colonists for the purpose of plundering them with the British mercantilist system.

There was always a group of men in American politics who were not opposed to the evil mercantilist system in principle. They recognized it as a wonderful system for accumulating power and wealth as long as they could be in charge of it. Being victimized by it was another matter. These men, led by Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists, strived to implement an American version of British mercantilism as soon as the Revolution was over. In doing so they were traitors to the American Revolution and the worst kind of corrupt, power-seeking political scoundrels. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

"Nullification in the Bluegrass State?"

By Michael Boldin, CampaignForLiberty.com.

Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment

In states around the country, there's a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution -- the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law"

While the FFA's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

What are Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

From Constitution.org

Letters of marque and reprisal are commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder:

1. Names person, authorizes him to pass beyond borders with forces under his command.
2. Specifies nationality of targets for action.
3. Authorizes seizure or destruction of assets or personnel of target nationality.
4. Describes offense for which commission is issued as reprisal.
5. Restriction on time, manner, place, or amount of reprisal.

Many of these documents were taken, with permission, from the Isle of Tortuga site, which is about piracy and letters of marque. Here is a link to our local copy of their Letters of Marque page.

The U.S. Constitution provides, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:
The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To learn more, click here.

"Remember the Constitution and our Veterans Today"

By Jake Towne.

"Soldiers' supreme wish is to avoid war, for the costs are inevitably paid with their blood and brains." - Jake Towne

Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic." All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all. . . .

To read the entire article, click here.

"Gold and Freedom"

By Jacob Hornberger, CampaignForLiberty.com.

...When the Framers were deliberating over the Constitution, they were fully aware of the dangers to people's freedom and well-being posed by a profligate government. As British subjects, they had experienced firsthand the ever-increasing taxes imposed by their king to finance his ever-growing expenditures. As revolutionaries, they had also experienced the ravages that come with the inflation of a currency to finance government expenditures. That's what "Not Worth a Continental" referred to. As citizens living under the Articles of Confederation, they knew the damage that irredeemable paper money can bring to a society.

The first thing to keep in mind about the Constitution was its dual purpose: to bring into existence the federal government while, at the same time, protecting the nation from it. While the Framers understood the need for government, they also understood that that same government constituted the greatest danger to their freedom and well-being...

To read the entire article, click here.

The Philosophy of Liberty

Does the Federal Government have a right to take your property?

An individual asked Paul the following question:

"Does the Government have the right to confiscate your property and all your possessions just because they think they have probable cause and the right to do so ?"

Paul then answered the question, but asked me to clarify using the Constitution. Here is my response.

-----------

I was asked to clarify Constitutionally the answer to your question. I would suggest that we need first to look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that all people have a right to their life, liberty and the fruits of their labor. This is part of what they considered the "Natural Law" that governs the universe. One of our founders' great inspirations was the enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:

"...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to..."

His basic point was that man injects part of his life and liberty into achieving certain ends, which are his property. To put it another way, you take some of the time of your life and of your own decision serve your fellow man through providing goods or services, and what you get in return is property. That property is the a tangible product of the mixing of your life and liberty, and to rob someone of their property is then to rob them of part of their life and liberty. This natural law precedes all and is above all human governments, thus it is their responsibility to uphold it. Out of all of our founders, Thomas Jefferson most completely upheld these natural property rights by abolishing all federal taxes, taxation being an unlawful (even for governments!) plundering of individuals.

With that in mind, our founders added the 4th and 5th amendments into the Constitution. These were compromises with natural law which allowed for some government theft of private property, but set strict limits through both procedure and extent. The 4th amendment says, "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 Warrants 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." This allows for government seizure of private property, but only within stict procedural limits including warrants that describe the specific objects to be seized and reasons for seizure of the objects. Therefore, the federal government could not lawfully take all of a person's property without a warrant listing every single object that the individual owns! Second, the 5th amendment says that an individual may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So if the government does take a person's private property, it is required to give just compensation.

But as always happens with government, you give them a little power and they twist it to be a lot of power. Thus has happened with the 4th and 5th amendments. They were meant as limits to the power of federal seizures but instead have been used as a license for federal seizures.

I know this is a somewhat longer response than you were expecting, but I hope you enjoyed it nevertheless. It's time we put more Thomas Jeffersons in power... if any still exist.

Jake Towne on Freedom Watch!

We were very excited to see one of our own LBCCS members, Jake Towne, on Feedom Watch with Judge Napolitano last Wednesday! You can watch the video below.

Getting the 10th Amendment Right

From TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

Excerpt from For A New Liberty

by Murray Rothbard

But why worry about the weakness of limits on governmental power? Especially in a “democracy,” in the phrase so often used by American liberals in their heyday before the mid-1960s when doubts began to creep into the liberal utopia: “Are we not the government?” In the phrase “we are the government,” the useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the naked exploitative reality of political life. For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group on behalf of another, this reality of burden is conve niently obscured by blithely saying that “we owe it to ourselves” (but who are the “we” and who the “ourselves”?). If the government drafts a man, or even throws him into jail for dissident opinions, then he is only “doing it to himself” and therefore nothing improper has occurred. Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part. But there is no way out of such grotesqueries for those supporters of government who see the State merely as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public.

And so we must conclude that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people, but even if it did, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the, other 10%, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority. Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how many citizens agree to the oppression. There is nothing sacrosanct about the majority; the lynch mob, too, is the majority in its own domain.

The entire book is available in PDF and MP3 formats from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

November Movie/Discussion Group Meeting!

November is here and we are excited to announce the next LBCCS meeting! We will be watching the final two episodes of the series "Liberty! The American Revolution." Last month's episodes ended with the glorious victory of the Americans at Saratoga and our next episode picks up with the British changing strategy and taking the war down south... bad idea.

Come and join us for a time of learning and positive discussion! We will also be providing snacks and coffee.

Please be sure and RSVP by Facebook or email so we can properly prepare for the group.

Date/Time:
Friday, November 13 at 7pm

Place:
The Historic Biery House
8 Race St
Catasauqua, PA 18032

Finding the Biery House:
The house is on the left almost immediately after crossing the Race St bridge (heading East) in Catasauqua. Click here for a map.

Any questions? Contact me, Ryan, at 484-553-0956. We hope to see you there!

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com

Excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address

"During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

"The Star Spangled Banner"

"You Might Be A Constitutionalist If..."

By Chuck Baldwin, Campaignforliberty.com.

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three "separate but equal" branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People...

To see the entire list, click here.

350 Years of Economic Theory in 50 Minutes

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is the world's foremost defender of proper economics, the Austrian School of thought. Throughout our nation's history, Progressives have taken the single concept of liberty and have broken it up into separate liberties, which then can be taken away one by one. It is an underhanded process, but has regardless been incredibly successful. You have a right to your own life, you have a free will and right to make your own choices (as long as they do not infringe upon the rights other persons), and you have a right to the fruits of your excercise of free will which is your property. A government attack on economics is a direct attack on your life and your liberty. Please watch this video and inform yourself, because the political-banking-industrial establishment has been lying to you.

"Let Us Now Try Liberty!"

Excerpt from The Law, by Frédéric Bastiat, 1850.

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

"Alliances as Transmission Belts of War"

by Doug Bandow, Campaignforliberty.com.

It’s been a year since Georgia and Russia went to war. Both sides deserved more than a little blame. But the U.S. and most European governments lined up behind Tbilisi. They now have been embarrassed by the release of a report from the European Union blaming Georgia for firing the first shot. That is, the West backed the aggressor in an unnecessary war. The episode should serve as a caution before Washington again ties American security to alliances, which are as likely to serve as transmission belts of war as firebreaks to war.

The U.S. once avoided making permanent alliances. The American colonies accepted French support to win their independence, but the infant nation backed away from Paris when the latter was convulsed by revolutionary terror and Napoleonic dictatorship a few years later.

On leaving office George Washington advised his fellow citizens in his famous Farewell Address: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible"...

To read the entire article, click here.

"Abolish the Federal Department of Education!"

by Jake Towne.

Last night with the Liberty Bell Center of Constitutional Studies, I was part of a panel answering questions on public education with the Concerned Citizens of Bethlehem Area School District. The BASD has been plagued with financial troubles stemming from OTC derivatives purchases, and previously I gave an educational presentation to this group on financial derivatives.

After the lecture from LBCCS founder Paul Fiske who related how our founding fathers viewed education, Ryan Burgett, chairman of LBCCS and I (as a member of LBCCS) took questions and there was one question I was unable to answer without a projector, which was the breakdown of spending by the federal Department of Education, which is below. I also gave a short synopsis of the history and issues I have with this Department.

For the first 177 years in American history, there was no federal Department of Education, which was reserved to the states and localities to handle as they saw fit. This was also in agreement with the Constitution of the United States, which does not provide any justification whatsoever for federal power over education; in fact, the 9th and 10th Amendments make such action both unconstitutional and illegal...

To read the entire article, click here.

The Founding Father On Education

You might be surprised to know how much our founding fathers had to say on the topic of public education. They were strong believers in public education through both public schools and libraries. At LBCCS we went through all we could find that our founding fathers said on the subject and were very easily able to narrow them down into nine points. Here are the nine points and the quotes to back them up.

1. Public education is essential for the preservation of liberty.

“A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare... as a comet or an earthquake. It has been observed that we are all of us lawyers, divines, politicians, and philosophers... Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people... They have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge—I mean, of the characters and conducts of their rulers.” John Adams, 1765

“Say... whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it required no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787

2.Education improves the human condition.

“The good education of youth has been esteemed by wise men in all ages as the surest foundation of the happiness both of private families and of commonwealths. Almost all governments have therefore made it a principal object of their attention, to establish and endow with proper revenues, such seminaries of learning as might supply the succeeding age with men qualified to serve the public with honor to themselves, and to their country.” Benjamin Franklin, 1749

“The idea of what is true merit should also be often presented to youth, explained and impressed on their minds, as consisting in an inclination joined with an ability to serve mankind, one's country, friends and family; which ability is (with the blessing of God) to be acquired or greatly increased by true learning; and should indeed be the great aim and end of all learning.” Benjamin Franklin, 1749

[referencing general public education] “No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, 1786

“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of all in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected.” Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man.” Thomas Jefferson, 1822

3.Public education is vital to a Republic.

“Educations generally [is] one of the surest means of enlightening and giving just ways of thinking to our citizens.” George Washington, 1796

“Promote... as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” George Washington, 1796

“A primary object... should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing on its legislature than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” George Washington, 1796

“Education is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” Thomas Jefferson, 1820

4.Parents have final say.

“It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.” Thomas Jefferson, 1817

5.Public schools should not replace private schools.

“It [should not] be proposed to take [the] ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal.” Thomas Jefferson, 1806

6.Public education should include reading, writing, arithmetic, history, fine arts, virtue/morality/religion and government studies.

“I think also that general virtue is more probably expected and obtained from the education of youth than from the exhortation of adult persons; bad habits and vices of the mind being, like diseases of the body, more easily prevented than cured.” Benjamin Franklin, 1750

“In the first will be taught reading, writing, common arithmetic, and general notions of geography. In the second, ancient and modern languages, geography fully, a higher degree of numerical arithmetic, mensuration, and the elementary principles of navigation. In the third, all the useful sciences in their highest degree. To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university.” Thomas Jefferson, 1817

7.Public school management and funding should come from the county level.

“The expense of the elementary schools for every county is proposed to be levied on the wealth of the county, and all children rich and poor to be educated at these three years gratis.” Thomas Jefferson, 1817

8.Public taxes are a legitimate means of funding public schools.

“Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [of misgovernment], and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.” Thomas Jefferson, 1786

“Laws will be wisely formed and administered in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the public happiness that those persons whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue should be rendered by liberal education worth to receive, and able to guard, the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens; and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth, or other accidental condition of circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expense, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and siposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expense of all than that the happiness of all should be confined to the weak or wicked.” Thomas Jefferson, 1790

“If the legislature would add to the literary fund a perpetual tax of a cent a head on the population of the state, it would set agoing at once, and forever maintain, a system of primary or ward schools, and a university where might be taught, in it highest degree, every branch of science useful in our time and country...” Thomas Jefferson, 1816

9.Public schools are not mentioned in the US Constitution and are therefore not a responsibility of the federal government.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the 18 specific powers of Congress. Public education is not on that list.

The 10th Amendment clearly states that any responsibility not specifically given to the Federal government in the Constitution is left to the state and local governments.

"Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States"

From LVRJ.com

Launched in March by Las Vegan Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers bills itself as a nonpartisan group of current and retired law enforcement and military personnel who vow to fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.

More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful, including directives to disarm the American people and to blockade American cities. By refusing the latter order, the Oath Keepers hope to prevent cities from becoming "giant concentration camps," a scenario the 44-year-old Rhodes says he can envision happening in the coming years...

To read the entire article, click here.

Visit http://www.oathkeepers.org to learn more about the Oath Keepers.

Special LBCCS Event Tomorrow!

Hey friends,

Just wanted to remind you that our special event hosted by the CC-BASD is tomorrow! We will be presenting and discussing the views of our founding fathers on public education (schools and libraries). They left more on the subject than you might think! We will be in Bethlehem Township for this event and hope to see you there! For all the information, visit:

http://www.lbccs.org/2009/10/special-lbccs-event.html

Please be sure and RSVP!

In liberty,

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.

"These Are Not Negotiable"

By Chuck Baldwin, CampaignForLiberty.com

"...I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured "patient sufferance." For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do... Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance... Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered..."

To read the entire article, click here.

Reason and Property

"As reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i.e., with an equal right to their persons, so also with an equal right to their preservation . . . and every man having a property in his own person, the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his own, to which no one has right but himself; it will therefore follow that when he removes anything out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his labour with it, and joined something to it that is his own and thereby makes it his property . . . . Thus every man having a natural right to (or being proprietor of) his own person and his own actions and labour, which we call property, it certainly follows, that no man can have a right to the person or property of another: And if every man has a right to his person and property; he has also a right to defend them . . . and so has a right of punishing all insults upon his person and property."

-Rev. Elisha Williams, 1744

Federalism, Freedom and the Constitution

From TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

Gold vs Paper

by Ludwig von Mises, mises.org

"Most people take it for granted that the world will never return to the gold standard. The gold standard, they say, is as obsolete as the horse and buggy... Now whatever virtues one may ascribe — undeservedly — to the modern variety of the greenback standard, there is one thing that it certainly cannot achieve. It can never become a permanent, lasting system of monetary management. It can work only as long as people are not aware of the fact that the government plans to keep it..."

To read the entire piece, click here.

The Importance of the County Sheriff

Our Founding Director, Paul Fiske, has been asked many times why The Sheriff Project is so important. If you have been to our recent meetings I am sure you will have heard the topic brought up at least once. Well, a member of the organization named Donna Fike sent out an email explaining why a the county sheriff is so important and thus why the Sheriff Project in general is so important. Here is her email:

--------

I have been questioned as to why this Sheriff Mack Event is so important… I thought that maybe a few more people have had similar thoughts. My experience has been that not many know what a sheriff is supposed to do….. Let me explain.

A sheriff is elected by the people, he works for the people. He is the ONLY elected Law officer, as such he is the Supreme Law officer of the county and he works for and is accountable to "We the People". He does not take orders from any one - except "the People" to whom he is accountable. Within the boundary of the county a sheriff has more power than the President of the United States.

Let me share this example to make the point of how much power a sheriff has.

The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Toilet Takers (AT&TT) come to your county and declare it is now illegal to own a toilet. "They" will be removing all toilets from the county this week!

The people say "We don’t want you to take our toilets, we like our toilets."

The AT&TT say, "Too bad we are here to take them!"

After some debate about the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit the owning and use of toilets, but protects the ownership of property; we are free to have them. The sheriff is called. The people explain to the sheriff the situation and remind him that it is not against the Constitution to own a toilet, and he needs to step in and make "them" go away.

It is the responsibility of the Sheriff to protect the people. He works for the people! He, as the Sheriff has the power and authority given to him by "The People" to tell the ‘Toilet Takers’ that "The People have spoken, they will be keeping their toilets!" Now they, as the AT&TT have a choice, they can peacefully leave the county without any toilets or they may sit in the county jail. It is their choice.

"We the people" need to keep in mind that we have responsibilities in supporting the Sheriff in the execution of his duty. We need to ‘have his back’, he needs to know that he does not stand alone, we are standing with him to protect our God given rights as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It does not matter what entity it is that comes to the county, whether they be Federal, State, International, or a Local government agency. It is the Sheriff’s duty to work for the people! To "Protect and defend" the Constitution. They swear an Oath to do so. We need sheriffs in each county that understand their duty, and has the intestinal fortitude to follow thru and uphold his Oath to the Constitution in his capacity as Sheriff.

Written by, Donna Fike 10/3/09

"What Post-American Era?"

From Trends-Magazine.com.

"A whole range of books crowd the shelves proclaiming the coming of the “Post-American Era.” Most say that we’ll soon be overtaken by other countries, and some analysts go as far as to predict that America will fall behind a whole pack of up-and-coming nations. Is that threat realistic? Or, is it just more ranting from pessimists trying to make a buck off the “crisis of confidence”? To answer this question, we need to assess America’s fundamental strengths and weaknesses, as well as some of the more significant threats and opportunities..."

To read the entire article, click here.

LBCCS Movie Night Review and Resources

Students of liberty,

Thanks to all who came to the Friday movie night. I feel bad for those who missed out on the event. But we had over a dozen folks and the meeting went great! It was launched by Randy Toman who led our invocation. You can find him online at LehighValleyConservative.com and he is the founder of the Concerned Citizens of the Bethlehem School District. The CC-BASD is the organization that is hosting our special educational event on the 19th. Following the invocation, I made a quick presentation on money and the intentionally forgotten history of the Revolutionary war. Then we watched episodes 3 and 4 of "Liberty! The American Revolution." For those who missed the meeting, click here to watch the episodes online.

We covered the years 1776-1778 from Washington retreating from New York City, to his surprise attack on the Hessian troops in Trenton, to the crushing defeat of the British in Saratoga led by Benedict Arnold, to the French deciding to enter the war on America's side. It was exciting and inspiring to watch and I hope you all will consider coming to our next movie night coming in November.

For further reading on the the revolutionary generation, we would suggest:

Liberty! The American Revolution, by Thomas Fleming
1776, by David McCullough
Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen
The Making of America, by W. Cleon Skousen

And lastly, special thanks to Paul Fiske for providing the coffee, Pastor David Massie for use of the chapel, and Rose Dunlap for bringing snacks.

Blessings in liberty,

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com

Liberty! The American Revolution, Parts 3 & 4

For those who missed our movie night, here are the episodes we watched.

Why Does LBCCS Exist?

Please watch this shocking video clip from the Glenn Beck Program. LBCCS is waging war against this kind of ignorance. For more information about how we are doing this, click here.

"In An Ideal America"

by Leonard Read. Mises.org.

In an ideal America, every person should be free:

-to pursue his ambition to the full extent of his abilities, regardless of race or creed or family background.

-to associate with whom he pleases for any reason he pleases, even if someone else thinks it's a stupid reason.

-to worship God in his own way, even if it isn't "orthodox."

-to choose his own trade and to apply for any job he wants — and to quit his job if he doesn't like it or if he gets a better offer.

-to go into business for himself, be his own boss, and set his own hours of work — even if it's only three hours a week.

-to use his honestly acquired property or savings in his own way — spend it foolishly, invest it wisely, or even give it away.

-to offer his services or products for sale on his own terms, even if he loses money on the deal.

-to buy or not to buy any service or product offered for sale, even if the refusal displeases the seller.

-to disagree with any other person, even when the majority is on the side of the other person.

-to study and learn whatever strikes his fancy, as long as it seems to him worth the cost and effort of studying and learning it.

-to do as he pleases in general, as long as he doesn't infringe the equal right and opportunity of every other person to do as he pleases.

To read the entire post, click here.

Special LBCCS Event!

We are excited to announce a special LBCCS event this month! We were invited by Randy Toman to join the Concerned Citizens of the Bethlehem Area School District (CC-BASD) at their monthly meeting on October 19. This meeting will be in place of our regular Discussion Group Meeting. Paul Fiske will be leading a presentation on our nation's founders and their views on public schools and education in general which will be followed by a question and answer time where Paul will be joined by Jake Towne and myself. We hope you will show up and support us as we spread the message of LBCCS! You will meet many new, good folks, and certainly learn a lot.

Date/Time:
Monday, October 19 at 7pm

Place:
Bethlehem Township Community Center
2900 Farmersville Rd
Bethlehem, PA

Directions:
The center is just down the road from where we have been holding our movie nights. From PA-33 between 22 and 78, exit at William Penn Hwy/Easton Ave and continue on Easton Ave (heading West) for .9 miles. Turn left at Farmersville Rd and follow for .5 miles. The community center will be on your left.

We hope to see you there!

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.

"U.S. To Break Up Soon?"

by Chuck Baldwin.

"According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, "'Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,' he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs--and everyone will get their piece. 'The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,' said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow's Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs..."

To read the entire article, click here.

LBCCS October Movie Night!

October is here and we are excited to announce our next LBCCS movie night! We will be continuing the PBS documentary series "Liberty! The American Revolution." Last month we watched as the colonies rebelled against Britain's oppression, we learned about the formation of the continental army, the incredible taking of Boston and the formation and signing of our glorious Declaration of Independence. Next week we will be watching Episodes 3 and 4 which cover the years 1776 to 1778. We start with George Washington rushing down to fortify New York City as the British fleet continues to grow right off the coast.

You will certainly enjoy yourself and learn a lot! We will also be providing snacks and coffee.

Please be sure and RSVP by Facebook or email so we can properly prepare for the group.

Any questions? Contact me, Ryan, at 484-553-0956.

Date/Time:
Friday, October 9 at 7pm

Place:
Calvary Chapel
4321 Easton Ave
Bethlehem, PA

Finding the chapel:
From PA-33 between 22 and 78, exit at William Penn Hwy/Easton Ave and continue on Easton Ave (heading West) for .9 miles. The chapel is at the intersection of Easton Ave and Reeve Dr. on the right, across from the Bethlehem Township Municipal Bldg and nestled in between a number of outpatient offices.

We hope to see you there!

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com

Are You Prepared?

Dear friends and fellow Americans,

This is going to be a very different kind of letter from what we normally send out. It is significantly more personal.

The Liberty Bell Center for Constitutional Studies focuses on history because that is the best way to understand the present. We can listen to the current lies and make base our decision-making on those, or we can look at true history and see the bigger picture. One thing we can see from our nation’s history is that Americans take care of themselves. We believe in the indigenous power of the individual and therefore believe that we as individuals are the first line of defense when it comes to our rights. In the 1700s, the American colonists understood this and made it a point to prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. That is why in the 1770s they were storing up weapons and ammunition. Did they want or expect war with Britain? No. On the contrary, they were proud to be British, but knew that they must do whatever it took to protect themselves and their families. When the worst came (war with Britain), they were prepared and stood their ground.

Modern Americans have a tendency to live in the present with little thought of potential disasters, and therefore do nothing to prepare. But that old proverb still remains true, we must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. So what is it that we should prepare for?

Well, we have over the last few years been told that our greatest danger came from terrorists, but it is becoming more and more clear that our greatest danger comes not from without, but from within. The more that government gets involved in our lives, the more potential there is for catastrophic disasters. Are you prepared for if the government starts home quarantining as result of the hyped up H1N1 virus? Are you prepared for the collapse of the dollar? What if there was a problem at the local water plant and too much chlorine leaked into the water and you could not use your tap for a week? And apart from government disasters, there is always the possibility of natural disasters. Natural disasters are not confined to tornadoes in the Midwest, hurricanes in the south and earthquakes in the west. One example of a natural disaster in the area was some major flooding near Pottstown in the 1970s. I had a friend who lived through that. Floodwaters came and engulfed a number of neighborhoods… and with the floodwater came looters pouring out of Philadelphia. My friend was prepared and sat outside of his house, gun in hand, and kept looters from taking what belonged to him and his family. Are you prepared?

What if the water went out? What if the electric went out? What if you were quarantined in your home? What if you dollar bills became worthless? These are all perfectly legitimate concerns that should at least warrant a little thought on our part. For these disasters, and others like them, you should make it a point to prepare.

Do you have weapons to defend your family and property against thugs and looters? Do you have non-perishable food stored up? Do you have water stored for both sanitation and hydration? Do you have a hand-powered crank radio and battery powered lights? Do you have cash AND non-cash hard money on hand? Do you have a family emergency plan for if a disaster struck quickly and you were separated from your family with no communication?

Lucky for us, there are many resources out there to help us prepare for what might come our way. One of the best is, surprisingly enough, a government website: Ready.gov. There you will find lists and recommendations for preparing for disasters. For disaster preparation supplies that you cannot get from local stores, check out Survivormall.com. You MUST have a plan and you MUST be prepared for whatever comes, it is the only prudent thing to do.

Please do not trust the government to take care of you, because you will only be disappointed. First of all, they have the worst track record possible. Remember Katrina? And second, by trusting them with this task, you are handing over a responsibility that should be yours to them and giving them power over your life that is not theirs to have. If the government is responsible for you, then they can do whatever they think is best for you. But only you know what is best for yourself and your family. Hold on to your indigenous power and take responsibility.

We must do as our founders did and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

Blessings in liberty,

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.
ryan_burgett@hotmail.com

Meeting Review and Resources

Students of Liberty,

Thanks to all who joined our Discussion Group on Friday. With the Campaign for Liberty conference going on at the same time we thought we were going to have a very small meeting, but ended up with sixteen people including some new faces. We had a great time of learning and productive discussion. Paul opened up the meeting with the Pledge of Alegiance and then the Invocation. Following that, I led a presentation on the History, Philosophy, and Lasting Significance of the Declaration of Independence. For the text of that presentation, and links to all the resources used to put it together, click here. During our discussion, Paul referenced the following websites for those interested:

http://www.usa1911.com/
http://www.sheriffmack.com/
http://www.fourthturning.com/

Art brought up the following links and videos:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HFGLXLFzzI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at3MNu8BRwQ

And for those who have not yet joined, please join our Facebook group so you can RSVP for upcoming meetings:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130186049828

Yours in liberty,

Ryan Burgett
Chairman - L.B.C.C.S.

"Monsieur Bastiat, Call Your Office"

From FEE.org

"Tomorrow I’ll lecture at the Liberty Weekend Dedicated to Frédéric Bastiat, sponsored by the Polish-American Foundation for Economic Research and Education (PAFERE) in Warsaw. Preparing for my visit, I reread Bastiat’s great book The Law. Oh do we need Bastiat today..."

To read the entire article, click here.

The History, Philosophy, and Lasting Significance of the Declaration of Independence

The following was presented to the LBCCS discussion group at the September 18 meeting.

The History of the Declaration:

The Declaration of Independence was the culmination of a long series of offenses against the American colonists. The colonists were British citizens and were proud of it until their rights started being infringed upon. Here is a basic history of the build-up to the writing and signing of the Declaration of Independence.

In 1765, the Stamp Act was passed which caused an uproar within in the colonies. Each colony had a legislature of their own, but Britain had bypassed the elected officials of the people and had put a direct tax on all paper goods from mail to newspapers to playing cards.

In 1766, Britain abandoned the Stamp Act, but then proceeded to pass the Declaratory Act which stated that Britain had full authority over the colonies and could do whatever they wanted regardless of local authorities. This started an even bigger firestorm.

In 1768 Britain declared marshal law in Boston and brought troops in to keep order. The colonists for the first time realized that they might need to use force to protect themselves, and as result started gathering weapons and ammunition.

In 1775, British troops left Boston to seize the rebels stores in Concord but the colonists were warned and the first shots of the Revolution were fired in the town of Lexington. The Continental Congress convened and decided to raise an army with George Washington as the head.

In 1776, the British fled Boston following Washington's brilliant taking of Dorchester Heights above the city. In Boston they found correspondence showing that King George was hiring Hessian mercenaries (ruthless killers from Germany) to join the British troops in America. Soon afterward, the booklet Common Sense was released to the public and instantly became a bestseller. So while there was still opposition among many high-level officials (specifically in Pennsylvania and South Carolina), the common folk of America took a stand firmly for Independence.

In June of that year, Richard Henry Lee called for independence but was strongly opposed by many in the Congress. But regardless, they decided to form a committee to draft a declaration, and then they would convene in three weeks to debate whether or not to accept it. The committee they chose included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (among a few others). John Adams refused to write it because he was unpopular among many in the Congress, and Benjamin Franklin's own son was the royal governor of New Jersey which disqualified him from writing such a document. So Thomas Jefferson, the shy philosopher from Virginia was chosen to write the Declaration. Following completion of that draft, Franklin and Adams joined with Jefferson to hammer out the final product.

On June 28, the Declaration was presented to the Continental Congress and after much deliberation, was adopted by vote on July 2 (although signatures did not start being collected until July 4). Until his death, John Adams refused to celebrate the Fourth of July, insisting that the correct day to celebrate was July 2.

The Philosophy Behind the Declaration:

It is clear in the Declaration that our founders in general, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, understood the difference between indigenous power and surrogate power. Indigenous power is that natural power given to man by his Creator. When a person wakes up in the morning, he decides what he wants to have for breakfast, then prepares it. He decides where he wants to go and what he wants to do. He can produce, or destroy. He can think and reason and act on decisions. That is what makes up man's indigenous power. And reason leads us to conclude that with that indigenous (natural) power comes natural rights. God endowed us with indigenous power, and rights to protect that power. We have a right to our life, liberty and earned property. God gave us that power and those rights, and therefore it is only He that can take them away (not any individual or government). That is called the "laws of nature and nature's God." Jefferson initially wrote that all men were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and property." Adams and Franklin, both firmly opposed to slavery, convinced him to change the wording to "pursuit of happiness" so the South would not see it as legitimizing their keeping of slaves, whom they considered "property." But regardless, the meaning was understood by all at the time. And they also understood "that to secure these rights, government are instituted among men."

Surrogate power is power granted by individuals to a surrogate entity. Governments and businesses are examples of surrogate entities. Does a business have any natural power? Can a business in and of itself make decisions and act on those decisions? A business only has what power is given it by the individuals that make it up. So when people start a business, they plug some of their indigenous power into it, which gives it surrogate power. It is the same way with governments; people take some of their indigenous power and plug it into the government to give it power. But problems arise when a surrogate power forgets that it has no power of its own and starts usurping the natural power and rights of others. That is a corrupt surrogate that needs to be stopped.

Our founders understood that governments have only surrogate power and derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" (the indigenous power of the individuals within it). And why are governments created? "To secure these rights" of life, liberty and earned property. And when "any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government."

One single individual has more power than any government does of itself. Individuals have natural power and natural rights and governments have only the power granted to them by the individuals who make up society.

When a person understands this, he can understand why our founders felt that they had a "right" and "duty" to "throw off such government" as the tyrannical Great Britain and "institute new government."

The Lasting Significance of the Declaration:

Progressives will say that the Constitution is "vague" and more of a "theory" than an actual manual for our government. They see the Constitution as a short document created to get the wheels of government turning but that would become irrelevant once the government was firmly in place and be replaced by some form of glorified pragmatism. They can believe this because they separate the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence. We know that those two documents are inseparable.

The Declaration declares the purpose of government, and the Constitution declares the means of accomplishing that purpose.

The purpose is simply to protect man's natural rights, and that is the reason why the Constitution is so short. There is a short list of responsibilities within the Constitution itself and the 10th Amendment clearly states that those are the ONLY responsibilities of our government. The lasting significance of the Declaration of Independence is that it is the lens with which to look at and understand the Constitution. Using it we are able to understand that the Constitution is a small document because our government was designed to be a very small government.

Sources:
The Declaration of Independence (read online or download free MP3)
Common Sense; Revisited (commonsenserevisited.com)
Liberty! The American Revolution (Amazon.com)
The 5000 Year Leap (Amazon.com; NCCS.net, download free MP3)
The Real Thomas Jefferson (Amazon.com; NCCS.net)
Second Treatise of Civil Government (Amazon.com, read online or download free MP3)
Common Sense (Amazon.com, read online or download free MP3)
The Constitution in Exile (Amazon.com)