A conversation between two Christians on government supported by videos

An argument between two devout Christians went like this:

Me:  Biblical government would be so small.

Friend:  Yes, but I don't think the secular public wants a biblical government. And I (a Christian) don't want really overly religious government either. They are bad at times.

Me:  I don't care about religious governments. (I don't defend general religion or general theism.)** And you don't believe in all religions anyway.  If you're saying that the kind of government that your God prescribed is not good enough, then what is?

Friend: I think a limited one is good. And you are just assuming that all the people in the country would want our God's government. That's why we formulated the original version of this government -- to prevent tyranny in all forms, secular and religious.

Me: The problem with that is that the U.S. Constitution itself was always an assault on Christianity -- a coup d'etat on our decentralized, overly Christian (religious) federation.***  I'm not the one defending tyranny here, although what you have in mind as our original government is admittedly a step up from what we have now. But so is tea in comparison to soda. That still doesn't make it water.

Friend: I don't see the Constitution as an assault on Christianity. I see it as a resistance to religious tyranny like radical Islam and the Inquisition of the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages.

I then sent him the above video. I should have sent the one below too.



*This was a text conversation that I edited for grammar.
**Words in bold were added for clarity. In fact, the text original read: "I don't care about relgious governments. U don't believe in all religions anyway. If your saying that the kind of government that your God prescribed is not good enough, then what is? (spelling preserved)
***By this I mean in the same way Gary North meant it.  Gary North puts it this way:

"In 1787, the states, with one exception (Rhode Island), were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new Constitution made all such oaths illegal for Federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14^th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments, completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso v. Watkins (1961)."

No, Republican Tom Delay. God is not the author of the U.S. Constitution

The Huffington Post reports:

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) urged Americans to realize that God “wrote the Constitution” and predicted an upcoming “awakening” during an interview on John Hagee Ministries’ Global Evangelism Television network on Wednesday.

“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government,” DeLay told host Matthew Hagee, the executive pastor of the Texas Cornerstone Church. “[W]e stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”

No sir, God did not write something that would fundamentally reject his rule.

Steve Halbrook of Theonomy Resources somewhat explains:

He rightfully opposes today's secular humanist approach to civil government—which to one degree or another has infected most of American Christianity. This is indeed an area that needs reformation. He also rightfully points out the anti-Christian nature of the U. S. Constitution; not that we deny that it is has some good procedure law, but it is at the very least dishonoring to Jesus Christ in its neglect of recognizing Him as the highest political authority in the land. (Covenanters pointed out this fatal flaw long ago.) 

Glenn Greenwald on Obama's virtual pledge to ignore Congress

Always insightful, Glenn Greenwald from The Guardian explains:

 To the contrary, there is substantial evidence for the proposition that the White House sees the vote as purely advisory, i.e., meaningless.

Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway (just as Clinton did when the House rejected the authorization he wanted to bomb Kosovo, though, at least there, Congress later voted to allocate funds for the bombing campaign). 

And then he gives us this nugget:

There are few things more bizarre than watching people advocate that another country be bombed even while acknowledging that it will achieve no good outcomes other than safeguarding the "credibility" of those doing the bombing. Relatedly, it's hard to imagine a more potent sign of a weak, declining empire than having one's national "credibility" depend upon periodically bombing other countries. 

Scheuer says non-intervention towards Syria benefits U.S. national-security interests already

Via Non-intervention.com:

Today’s status quo in Syria benefits U.S. national-security interests without Washington having to take any action at all:

–a.) The Syrian army, Lebanese Hizaballah guerrillas, and Iran’s soldiers are killing large numbers of America’s enemies among al-Qaeda, its allies, and their supporters. Iran and Syria also are spending themselves further into bankruptcy.

–b.) At the same time, Al-Qaeda and its allies — America’s enemies — are killing large numbers of the Syrian army, Lebanese Hizballah guerrillas, and Iran’s soldiers, all of whom Washington describes as America’s true-blue enemies.

–c.) And much of this mayhem is being at least partially facilitated by the money and expensive equipment being sent to each side by other of America’s enemies — Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, for example.

For all of these realistic, common sense, beneficial-to-America, and — dare I say? — America First reasons, as well as for the even more important constitutional reasons cited above, Senate and House leaders ought to lay down the constitutional law — that is, no Congressional declaration, no war — to the supposed constitutional lawyer Obama and thereby make him obey the law for the first time in his presidency.

The Constitution Can't Check Despots, the Founders created a new God, and Christian Constitutionalists are powerless to stop it

An old, but good essay on choosing between the tyranny of the constitution and liberty. He's admittedly a little uncertain on theology as he gets near the end. Here are some excerpts:

Excerpt 1: The Constitution Can't Check Despotism

What I am suggesting is that the Constitution, if the letter of its law was obeyed, would be preferable to the government we have now. But we can't go back. If the Constitution itself was so good, it would have been obeyed from the very beginning. But near the very beginning, it was violated, and has been violated ever since. Whether from a self-perceived higher ethical law, or expediency, the Constitution will always be violated. It has not been, is not now, nor ever will be, a check on despotism. Yes, Americans will still think of themselves as free and therefore morally superior to other nations. But many public school students in the Soviet Union also used to think of themselves as free. Illusion is not reality, not even the grand illusion of our Constitution.

Excerpt 2: Why Isn't the Constitution followed?

But it is not followed. Why is this so? It is because the ethical/religious views of the people and their rulers take precedence.

Excerpt 3: Who is the New God? What Created Separation of Church and State?

North places great importance on the Oath, alleging that this, not the First Amendment, created the Separation of Church and State. No federal officer would have any "religious test," that is, will not be bound by an oath before the Trinitarian, Christian God. This was an about-face from the practice of all twelve of the states that sent delegates to the Convention (and, ironically, consistent with the principles of the one state that was a no-show: Roger Williams' Rhode Island.) The leading Founders were not orthodox, Trinitarian Christians, and their new Constitution was a break with the Trinitarian, Christian God and a new Covenant with a new God, the "People."

Excerpt 4: The Challenge for Christians

Dr. North's approach may be incomprehensible to the unreligious. But his challenge to American Christians is remarkable. Western Christians, even if they try to resist the spirits of the age such as Marxism and Darwinism, must still confront their own Newtonian Modernism, and their innate belief that humans can somehow figure out the universe and play at least some role in saving themselves and society, instead of relying wholly on the infinite grace of the Triune God. 

Why the Constitution Isn't the Bible || James Leroy Wilson

Ted Weiland on the overturning of DOMA

Ted Weiland:

This ruling could have never occurred had the government not got into the (lucrative) business of licensing (making legal) heterosexual marriages, what was already lawful under Yahweh's jurisdiction. That which provides the license, ultimately makes the rules for what it licenses.

Had the framers not failed to expressly establish government upon Yahweh's immutable morality, secular government would have never been allowed to provide licenses for marriage and this ruling would have never occurred. In fact, not one of today's Supreme Court Justices would be on the bench if Bible law were the rule and thereby Biblical qualifications the standard for judges.

For more, see online Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.

Original Comment here

The Pro-Gay Marriage Reader - A Constitutional Perspective

The Constitutional Case for Same-Sex Marriage || UnitedLiberty.org

A strong argument that, while acknowledging that the libertarian notion that the best deal would be for the government to get out of the marriage business, also acknowledges the Jim Crow-like 2-tier marriage system is here and needs to be dealt with. Marriage for me, but not for thee, it argues, is not how things should be until the government gets completely out. Perhaps its most powerful argument, however, is that "[b]y outlawing same-sex marriage, the states are essentially forbidding religious institutions to marry whom they with."

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage || Cato.org

The Chairman of the libertarian-think tank the Cato Institute argues that "equal protection of the law" applies to homosexual/same-sex couples as well. Levy says that no compelling reason why the government sanctions marriage for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals has been given. Additionally, he argues that reasons to ban same-sex marriage - it would weaken the institution of marriage - isn't helped by that very ban, and offers legal suggestions to strengthen conservatives beloved institution.

The take-away from both articles:

The strongest case, it seems, for the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is to argue that banning gay marriage is a violation of the "equal protection of the law" granted in the 14th Amendment. Also, both writers are libertarians it seems they really wish - Levy uses the term "regrettably" - the government didn't get involved in marriage in the first place.

Bonus: Can We Really Get The Government Out of Marriage?

A piece giving a historical overview of the government's involvement in marriage, including property, taxes, and all sorts of benefits and protections, and acknowledges that "marriage licenses" are relatively new in human, or at least Western, history.

Bonus: When Did Laws Denying Same-Sex Couples Marriage Licenses Become Unconstitutional?

Another history lesson. This time, it answers when denying marriage licenses to gays became unconstitutional.

Friedersdorf: 'Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis'

I agree with this:

I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him:    

1. Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue. 
2. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.  
3. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama || Conor Friedersdorf

Constitution is STILL a secular document, says a Christian

NPR has a story out about a Christian man who believes the Constitution is a biblical document, or at least very laced with biblical quotations:

For example, you've been taught the Constitution is a secular document. Not so, says Barton: The Constitution is laced with biblical quotations.

"You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible's all over it! Now we as Christians don't tend to recognize that. We think it's a secular document; we've bought into their lies. It's not."

I highly disagree, and I think he's fighting wrong battle.

But I won't say why.

Watch this, read this, this, this, and then this WHOPPER. There.

Lawyer Representing States Challenging Obamacare: Justice Roberts ‘Rewrote the Law’

Washington (GoinsReport.com) -- A lawyer representing the 26 states challenging the 2010 healthcare law said Monday that Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion for the 5-4 vote that upheld the Constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare law, “rewrote the law” when invoking the taxing powers of Congress to justify upholding the Affordable Care Act.

“He did not interpret the language that Congress enacted,” David Rivkin explained. “He rewrote it. In fact if you want to kind of flip an observation, just like on the front end, it took Nancy Pelosi, as per her mortal statement, remember ‘we need to pass the law to figure out what’s in it,’ it took the Supreme Court to rewrite the law to uphold it.”

He continued: “And clearly rewriting the law is not justified by the imperative constitutional deference. It’s not justified by going to the enth degree to parse the words in such a way as to save it from oblivion.”

David Rivkin, who served in both the Reagan administration and George H.W. Bush administration, said that re-conceiving taxing power troubled him far more.


He also said that re-writing the law wasn’t a judicial function.

“What troubles me far more, is the way he reconceived taxing power, makes it another specie of general police power, at least something that can easily morph into it,” Rivkin said.

Rivkin made his remarks alongside other legal and health policy scholars at the Cato Institute.

In his written opinion on the healthcare law, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."

“A weird sort of victory for federalism enclosed in a loss”

Legal scholars from across the political spectrum gathered Monday, June 2, at the Cato Institute to discuss the pros and cons of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the constitutionality of President Obama’s 2010 health care law.
Randy Barnett, a Georgetown Law School professor, said the decision “could have been worse,” and noted that while the healthcare law has been upheld, an advance on at least one front has been made: the scope of the Commerce Clause was not expanded although the individual mandate was upheld.

“As it is we made good law as opposed to bad law on the constitution,” Barnett said.

He also said that reversing the law “is within the power of the electorate.”

Ilya Shapiro, the Senior Constitutional Studies Fellow at the Cato Institute, expressed a similar view.

“Randy is right, this is a weird sort of victory for federalism enclosed in a loss,” he said.

“As I titled my SCOTUS blog yesterday ‘we won everything but the case,’” he continued.

But Barnett also reflected on another lesson from the decision: “five votes on the Supreme Court is not enough…Because if you only have five somebody breaks.”

Barnett made his comments a day after CBS News reported that Chief Justice Roberts switched his views to uphold the healthcare law.

According to that report, a source said that Justice Roberts was initially going to vote against upholding the law, but then switched his views to side with liberals on the court.

“Well we all know what kind of decision this was. First of all it was obvious on the face of the opinion before the reporting took place yesterday that this was a political decision. It was not a legal decision.”

“The legal merits were all on our side,” Barnett said.

Barnett said that if it was a political decision, it was a “foolish move if it was done out of calculation” and “not a smart move because it misreads the politics of the country” at this time, adding that it was an” illegitimate basis to make a constitutional ruling” if political.

‘Easily Reversed’

Barnett held out hope that the taxing power which was invoked to hold the law could be reversed.

“But what is the precedential weight of this decision? How binding is it on future judges? How much respect is it due given how we have a very good idea about how that fifth vote was obtained?”

Barnett said that with any kind of “change in our political culture” the tax part of this decision is not long for this world,” adding that it “could be easily reversed because it is not a weighty precedent,” Barnett said.

However, the he added that if the political culture does change as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the healthcare law, the decision itself would “not pose a barrier to forward progress in limiting the powers of the federal government.”

Michael Cannon, a health policy scholar at the Cato Institute, said that the law was “weaker” and the path to repealing the Affordable Care Act was “clearer than it was one week ago.”

He cited the public backlash against the law, and states’ ability to block new expansions in Medicaid as things going in the direction of repeal.

Legal Scholar says Obama act impeachable, but far from most impeachable act

*Editors note: This story was written around October 18, 2011

(GoinsReport.com) – President Obama’s recent decision to send 100 military advisors to Uganda to assist Ugandan forces to depose of the Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony is an impeachable act—but far from the most impeachable thing he’s done in his presidency, says a constitutional scholar.

“The thing is of course that we have many statutes outstanding giving the president all kinds of legal authority, some of which are conflicting, and so clearly you have to look into his formal statements about what authorizes him to do this before you can reach a conclusion” says Kevin Gutzman.

He added: “Just from what I know about this current action in South Central Africa, we don’t really know exactly whether it’s legal. We don’t know exactly what he wants these soldiers doing.”

“It’s hard to believe that people would make very much out of 100 troops when we’ve had weeks and weeks of American military involvement in Libya and nothing has come of it,” Gutzman said.

Last March, the President invoked the War Powers Act to conduct U.S. missile strikes against Libya's air-defense systems. Nine Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), raised objections to constitutionality of the president's actions, reports said back in March.

At the time, a non-partisan advocacy group, the War Powers Committee of the Constitution Project, called the continued U.S. military action in Libya "unlawful" since even the most generous interpretations of the War Powers Act can't stretch the time limit the Commander-in-Chief has to get congressional approval beyond 60 days.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker reportedly said on the White House's decision to become involved in Libya.

“They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air,” the Democrat lawmaker continued.

Under the War Powers Act, established in the president has to seek congressional approval within 60 days of committing U.S. troops abroad and inform Congress that troops will be deployed for military action.

“Consulting” congress has its origins in the War Powers Act, an act which Gutzman calls unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the president to deploy troops for months before seeking authorization from Congress.

“The bottom line is these things are supposed to be done after getting authorization from congress,” Gutzman said.

The pattern of presidents sending troops off to war without congressional authorization is a pattern that has become common after World War II, and is unlike precedents set by America’s earliest presidents like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who both received congressional approval before sending ships off to North Africa to protect American ships there and defending American ships at sea by declaring war against Great Britain, respectively, Gutzman said.

“This pattern of behavior that we have in presidents now really comes from World War II, at least of basically doing whatever they want and then asking Congress ‘would you please approve it?’ is the opposite of what the Constitution contemplates,” Gutzman said.

Kevin Gutzman is professor of History at Western Connecticut University and co-author of Who Killed the Constitution?

Gibbs & Gibbs give a cautionary note on the Constitution

"As great as the Constitution is, and as much as it was influenced by the Bible and by the Godly men who wrote it, we must never put that document on the same level as the Bible. The Bible should be the only source upon which Christians base their duties and responsibilities toward both God and government. The Bible alone is to be the exclusive source of a Christian's belief about the role of government--nothing else. A Christian should not base his beliefs upon a source that is less than absolute. Anything other than the Bible is a flawed source."

Gibbs & Gibbs, Understanding the Constitution: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Supreme Law of the Land

Little Leviathians need to be monitored, too

The conservative focus on the federal government is understandable, considering the way it affects all citizens. But as the population increases, it becomes imperative that we pay equal attention to the Little Leviathans that arise at the state and even local levels of governance.

Joe Carter, The Limits of Limited Government

Does the Balanced Budget Amendment go far enough?

Does this go far enough?

That is why I am co-sponsoring HJR 2, which would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. Our proposal makes common-sense exceptions for times of declared war, and would allow Congress in times of emergencies to override the requirement with a three-fifths vote in the House and Senate. It would also require a three-fifths vote in both houses to raise the debt limit. The amendment would go into effect two years after ratification, giving Congress time to balance its budget in a responsible way.

Solution to our deficit problem: Balanced budget amendment

Criticizing Obama, Kucinich credits Bush for asking Congress to go to war

Criticizing Obama, Kucinich credits Bush for asking Congress to go to war - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Excerpt:

Kucinich said U.S. drone attacks in foreign lands are akin to war. Citing the attack in Pearl Harbor, Kucinich said that if a bomb dropped on the U.S., it would be labeled a war. He added the U.S. needs to significantly change its foreign policy, saying, "We can't be global cop."

Video: 'Is Healthcare a Constitutional Right?' Asks CNSNews.com

Is Health Care a Constitutional right? Well, Rep. John Lewis seems to think so. He cites the Preamble to the Constitution, Fourteen Amendment and the "Pursuit of Happiness" statement in the Declaration of Independence as his support.

The full story can be read here.

The End of the Internet

I received this in my e-mail. I thought it was kind of important for you to know what the government planned on doing back in 2009. Who knows, a bill like this may try to creep up again.

Oh, and I almost forgot. I received this from John Tate, the Campaign for Liberty President.

Sign this petition if you are for the cause.

Read on dear internet user!

Dear Patriot:

Please take your time and read this email carefully.

Because if a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit your inbox.

In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your email in the first place!

I know what you're thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax.

I wish it was.

But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. That's why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009."

Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.

And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants.

That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill."

As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.

It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.

And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy."

In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress.

Well now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man.

If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of the U.S. Internet.

That's right, under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shutdown from the Internet.

But that's not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals."

If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats.

Well I know I like writing to you, and I hope you like hearing from me.

Or if not me, at least you probably like staying in touch with your family and friends, and having access to uncensored news and current events.

And that's why I hope you'll help Campaign for Liberty stop the Internet Takeover Bill by signing our Internet User's Mandate to Congress.

Today, legislation like this — built on the same statist principles as the infamous Patriot Act — must sneak through Congress quietly.

They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this swill "for our own good."

And it's especially critical that Campaign for Liberty and other fellow R3volutionaries fight this power grab.

Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment?

Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and protests of socialized medicine?

With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare "emergency" and shut down all online planning.

I don't want to see good politicians lose potential millions or demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don't either.

That's why I hope you'll sign your Internet User's Mandate and make a donation right now to Campaign for Liberty to make sure that never happens.

We're going to fight this bill hard, because it's clear that the Internet is the next frontier for liberty politics, and Campaign for Liberty is right on the forefront.

So please click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress in opposition to Barack Obama's Internet Takeover and Shutdown Bill.

And in addition to signing your mandate, please make a generous contribution of $100, $50 or $25 so we can fight this Internet takeover.

We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama doesn't disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block all your emails.

And frankly with Audit the Fed, Cap and Tax and socialized healthcare debates, Campaign for Liberty is stretched pretty thin.

And unlike the government we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our only revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you.

We need you to stay educated and active.

We've put too much time into building our pro-liberty online networks, websites and email lists. We simply cannot afford to give Barack Obama the power to dismantle all that at the drop of a hat.

So please, click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate and if you can make a contribution of $100, $50 or $25 or whatever you want to Campaign for Liberty to stop this power grab...

...to defend our rights...

...and most importantly, to protect this movement.

I trust you'll join this fight to protect all the progress we've made.

In Liberty,


John Tate
President