Posted by CeliaScheer on 09/30/10

We all need to get busy and write letters. HEre is one I wrote to the Duluth News Tribune.

In a letter on Sept 9, Gardener Ellis wrote “real change will manifest itself through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 200 years: the Constitution.” On the 27th, Dave Miller responded. Unfortunately, several of the premises in the response are incorrect. I am going to address two of them.

Mr. Miller claimed, "In a democracy, the only way to solve problems is for elected representatives to work together in a bipartisan way." We do not have a democracy. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic. Does the Pledge of Allegiance say 'to the Democracy for which it stands?" or "to the Republic?" No where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence is the word 'democracy'. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." We do have democratic procedures, but we are in fact a republic. The elected representatives need to quit trying to be our leaders, micromanaging our lives, and return to being our representatives and our public servants.

The other issue I'd like to address is where Mr. Miller said, "The 'interpretation' of the Constitution, as set up by the Constitution, is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, not individuals." Again, this is incorrect. It is true, that in Marbury vs. Madison, Justice John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court would decide the Constitutionality of the law. Before that, who decided? We the People decided. No where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court decides what is or is not Constitutional.
The Constitution defines the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not define the Constitution; that would be circular logic.

One thing I would add to Gardner Ellis's list of solutions is the civic education of our citizens. But he is correct in his belief that a return to the Constitution would be the real change we need.

Celia Scheer

Now, go and write one! Take a stand before we no longer can.

Thank you!

 
Posted by CeliaScheer on 09/21/10

On June 24, 2010, during the fight over the DISCLOSE Act, Representative Susan Davis commented on the U.S. House floor that she had been receiving lots of calls from Campaign for Liberty members and tried to use our organization's activism to justify voting for the First Amendment-shredding bill. In response, C4L members bombarded Davis' office with phone calls, emails, Facebook messages, and more to send the message that C4L is made up of people who value liberty and our founding principles. If Susan Davis didn't know who Campaign for Liberty was prior to her speech, she sure does now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy-MfwPQST8

 
Posted by CeliaScheer on 07/21/10

Dear Aunt Liberty,

Some people complain about over taxing, but really, don’t we need the government to help the less fortunate?

Caring Person


Dear Caring,

Three questions for you:

1. Would you steal your neighbor’s cow? (Of course, if you were hungry, instead of stealing his cow, you could ask your neighbor for help, maybe work on his farm for milk.)

2. Would you steal your neighbor’s cow to help another neighbor?

3. Would you try to have someone else steal the cow, to be given to this needy neighbor?

Hopefully, the answer to these question is no, and yet all of us are participating in theft every day. How? By supporting the actions of the government which does the stealing routinely. Peter is robbed to ‘benefit” Paul, with the acceptance, if not the active support, of the taxpayers. We participate in the legal plunder and we willing take the part of the loot offered to us while meekly accepting the theft of our own property.

What always seems to happen is that when several good people, who would never individually steal, become a group, stealing seems justified. It’s ok the steal if the majority say it is ok. We can justify it as a good cause: poor people may need the help, or what ever crisis is facing us needs to be funded. Suddenly, the good people can’t see the immorality of the legal plunder: “if the majority decides it’s ok; it must be ok, then.”

It seems that wherever the government is involved, “Thou shalt not steal,” becomes: “Thou shalt not steal, except for a worthy cause.” Nothing can make this immoral act into a moral one. Theft is theft, whether done by one person, by a group, or by officials with fancy titles and lofty sounding goals.

It is easier, too, to transfer the responsibility to help others to the government. Then, we don’t need to be bothered with the pesky details.

After a disaster, we need to reach into our own pockets to fund the aid. There is no way to be a Good Samaritan by taking forcibly from some people to give to others. It kills compassion from the people who would have acted on their own to help, but now need to do nothing. The receivers who “benefit” lose their self reliance. The victims of the theft start to wonder if it wouldn’t be better to join in the sharing of the loot; they were robbed, they should be able to rob as well.

I have heard some even claim that Jesus would have been in favor this system of redistribution. They seem to forget that he never advocated any type of violence or theft ever, even for Very Good Reasons. He told us to help each other. He never once said to render unto Caesar so that he may redistribute it to the needy. We were to care for the widows and orphans ourselves. We need to; helping others is only virtuous when it is done by voluntary, mutual consent. Virtue only exists when there is free choice. This is not only the most practical and humanitarian way, it is also the most ethical.

 
Posted by CeliaScheer on 07/12/10

Dear Aunt Liberty,

I voted Democrat last election because the Republicans had messed things up so much, but now it seems like the Democrats are messing things up just as much. The bad things are still the same, like the war in Iraq. There was no change there. What is the difference between the two parties?

Signed, Confused


Dear Confused,

They do try to sound different. Democrats talk about the poor and the environment while they make government bigger, more expensive and more intrusive, and while they pass laws to benefit their corporate interests. Republicans talk about small business owners and the family while they make government bigger, more expensive and more intrusive, and while they pass laws to benefit their corporate interests.

They do have some differences. Democrats want to be your mommy: “Oh, poor baby! Let me take care of you!” They want to take care of everybody. Or more to the point, they claim to take care of the needy, but they do not realize or do not care that doing so is at the expense of everyone else and has the unintended consequence of actually creating more needy. Democrats want to control your finances, either to give to you or to take from you, and often times giving to you with one hand while taking from you with the other.

Republicans want to be your daddy: “You’re not leaving the house dressed like that, young lady!” They want to control your morality. They try to impose their values on you, which they claim, is for your own good. But, once you grant them the right to control one aspect of your life, you have accepted the premise that they can control all aspects of your life. What you can or cannot do is then subject to the control of what ever group has the most political influence.

The problem is that we don’t need a mommy or a daddy. We need to be treated like adults and allowed to be free to live our lives. When they take away our responsibility to do that, they also take away our rights. For instance, the government outlaws raw milk, even though there is no authority in the Constitution for the government to decide what we can or cannot eat. There are worse things than raw milk. What about fast food? Should the government outlaw deep fried food? Then there are matters more life altering than either a glass of milk or a burger and fries. Should the government take care of those things for us, too? Should they decide who we should marry or what job we should have? If we humans are too stupid, greedy, lazy or apathetic to make our own decisions, how can some of those same stupid, greedy, lazy and apathetic humans be expected to make these choices for everyone?

Another way to compare the two parties is that Democrats believe the government can end poverty, even though for the last 40 years the government’s policies have expanded poverty. Republicans believe the government can end drug use, even though for the last 40 years, the government’s policies have escalated not only drug use but as a result, they’ve escalated crime as well (in the same way Prohibition resulted in the mob, the War on Drugs has resulted in gangs). Those are just a couple quick examples.

We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but neither our “mommy” nor our “daddy” seem to care.

 
Posted by CeliaScheer on 06/03/10
Last updated 06/03/10

I recently gave a 4 hour class on the Constitution. It went well and I got a lot of positive feedback from it. 

I attended a Constitution class given by Michael Badnarik a year ago.If you ever get a chance to take it from him, don't pass it up. If you can't see him in person, here's a link to an old one he gave: http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

He also has a book I recommend: It's Good to Be King. He signed my book, like he usually does, "Lighting the flame of Liberty one heart at a time."  Since, mine was already lit, I thought I might do the same for others. I am no Michael Badnarik, but I know, if only we can educate people, we will be well on the road to solving our problems.

I started preparing by rewatching the class he gave (link above). I watched another 6 hour documentary, as well, but it was favoring big government, so I won't bother adding the link here. I searched online for information about giving a class. It was very helpful as well.

I printed chapter 2 from Michael Badnarik's book; he makes it available for free (as long as you keep in the copyright, etc). It is a pdf you can download here: http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/ It is very important for people to understand what rights are and what they are not. I didn't lecture from it, just recommended they read it. I already have a 'speech' on rights pretty much down pat, so I stuck to that. I printed up 30 copies of chapter 2 and put them in the center of the folders.

In the pockets, I put more handouts. I printed the Constiution at a Glance, a 2 page pdf, which is available here: http://www.nccs.net/index.html (in the box 'learn about the Constitution'). That was a very handy guide. I stapled those two pages together for a handy reference guide.

I put together an overview on one page and made another page explaining the Law of the Land. The overview page included the definition of 'federal', which is much different than the 'federal' we have today. As you know, our federal government is not federal at all, but a strong central goverment that unilaterally decrees what all should do.

Most of the Law of the Land page was from the Citizen's Rule book by Witten Publisher's. Here is the segment I used:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succintly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256

I added copyright information after it and a summary.

Those three went into the front pocket. The back pocket had handouts with my favorite founding father's quotes and another with a 'start for self-study': suggested reading list, suggested dvds to watch and some great links. Of course, everyone needed a pocket Constitution to go with it. I did order mine not from C4L, but from NCCS (link above). They have them $30/100, which was the lowest price I've found. I ordered 300 from them last summer and the price was the same, then, too, but those were gone and I needed more.

Allow a whole evening of stapling and punching holes, especially if you are too cheap to buy a 3 hole punch and do it all with a single hole punch... and the bruise on my hand did heal in a couple days. I made a 'template' for hole punching, so the holes would all line up properly but next time, I will get the 3 hole punch.

I brought with me a stack of books that really helped me learn, so they could look at them. I also brought along some money: 2 quarters, one silver, one a current quarter for comparrison; some 'hard luck' tokens from the days of Andrew Jackson, after he got rid of the first 'federal reserve' type central bank; some silver certificates and some Liberty dollars, the NORFED type, both the silver and copper coins and the paper certificates. I used these for object lessons to help prevent dozing. I also brought a write on/wipe off board for illustrating things. For example, I put We the People on one line with an arrow pointing below to the Government. We the People created the government (insert 'Created is never above Creator' speech), then when I got to 14th Ammendment, I was able to write, on the line below government, 'US Citizen' and draw a line down to that, showing that the government created the US Citizen. This is an important concept, so make sure everyone understands before you move on.

The class was a 4 hour class, two hours, a break, then two more hours. First, I covered some history, explaining the intent of the Constitution. (This is good for when people say, 'We have no idea what the founders intened.' It givesd people a reply, 'Oh, yes, we do!' They wrote volumes in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist Papers.) Then we covered the Constitution and Bill of Rights before the break. After, we covered the rest of the ammendments, and then the important part: how we can fix it.

G. Edward Griffin once said in a speech, if you have a life raft that is sinking, people will not do anything: there is nothing to be done, apathy will set in. Now, imagine if the same siuation suddenly had a patch kit and a pump, people would spring to action fixing the life raft. We need to be sure to point out the patch kits and pumps that we have available. Education is the first step, but also it is very important to point out that solutions exist. After hours of depressing discovery on how there is very little, if any, Constitution left in our government, it's good to end on a positive note. Then, the class can spring to action!

Now, you can spring to action and give your own class.

(I'll be happy to help you if you need it, send me a message, call me, whatever works for you.)