LDS Freedom Forum

Among the limited duties of the US Government enumerated in the federal Constitution is Article. IV. Section. 4. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion." However, for several decades now, the federal government in Washington, D.C., has shown great ambition and propensity to engage in activities to which it was never authorized, and to ignore those responsibilities with which it is specifically charged. The responsibility of the federal government to protect each State against invasion is a classic example of the latter.

Can anyone deny that the states on the US southern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) are being invaded by an ongoing onslaught of illegal aliens (many of whom are violent and dangerous criminals)? Somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals now reside in the US. The entire country is feeling the effects of this invasion, but the Border States are literally under siege. And not only does the federal government do nothing to protect the states against this invasion, it actively wars against states such as Arizona when they attempt to protect themselves. Yes, I am saying it: the Washington, D.C., lawsuit against the State of Arizona's immigration laws should be regarded as an act of war against the State of Arizona in particular, and against the states general in principle.

Instead of obeying the Constitution and helping to protect the State of Arizona (and the other Border States), it sues the State of Arizona for trying to protect itself. Again, by this action, has not Washington, D.C., declared war against the State of Arizona (and, by implication, the other 49 independent, sovereign states)?

Please understand: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in the Arizona legislature are not only defending their State, they are working to protect every State in the Union. Very obviously, the line is being drawn in the sand against a federal leviathan that increasingly shows blatant disregard for not only its own responsibilities and duties, but for the rights and freedoms of the individual sovereign states, and for the American citizenry as a whole.

Chip45 wrote:I completely agree with Chuck Baldwin .... and in Utah, our cowardly governor Herbert wants to sit down and talk with "community organizers" (a.la Obama types). You can speculate what that discussion will be like! he wants to "compromise". He wants to avoid offending anyone cause HIS vision is to get elected.

RULE: You cannot compromise with people who do not share the same vision, the same goal as you do. You can only compromise with people trying to achieve the same goal as you are. The compromises involve the how-to's to achieving that shared goal, that shared vision.

EXAMPLE: A gun owner cannot compromise with a person wanting to disarm him/her. How do you compromise with someone trying to achieve a goal exactly opposite of your vision? You can't!

Another example, we are often told about the compromise in our Constitutional Convention regarding slavery. But look at it, just as I described above. The convention attendees had the same basic vision, the same goal. They came up with a compromise to overcome the stalmate over an institution that existed and threatened to defeat obtaining the shared goal, that being slavery and allocation of representation in the House.

We cannot compromise with those whose vision it is to essentially destroy American soverignty. To create a one world government. To create a regional government (North American Union) patterned after the EU as a stepping stone to that NWO.

Those who support illegal immigration, want amnesty for illegals, want to create a "path to citizenship" for those here - cannot be compromised with. They have a different vision for America. The only way to deal with such people is to draw lines in the sand and threaten them with force. That is all they understand.

To do that, you need brave governors and state legislators willing to draw that line in the sand. Herbert is not that brave, thus I label him a coward.

Most important though, is that you need a brave populace who will elect brave individuals to fight the domestic enemies to our Constitution.

I doubt we have those, thus, we will see Herbert continue to sound like Rodney King ... "can't we all just get along?"