Email received from Michael Badnarik. Bold-facing in last paragraph added.
From: Michael Badnarik <scholar@ConstitutionPreservation.org>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Last Letter
At 07:26 PM 3/13/2012, Jeff Williams wrote:
Just so you know, I have it on pretty good authority that a former Libertarian party presidential candidate may be writing a response to Barrett's weekend column. Michael Badnarik is a close friend of mine, and he's been pretty frustrated by Schroeder's attacks. He also served at Continental Congress.
I am submitting the following commentary for possible inclusion on your public opinion page. Thank you for your consideration.
When an honest man is proved wrong, he either ceases to be wrong or he ceases to be honest
I do not know Barrett Schroeder, but I was directed to one of his writings posted on The Spokesman-Review website which is highly critical of the Articles of Freedom and those who support it. I would like to challenge several of his ideas to discover whether he will cease to be wrong or cease to be honest. I suspect that Mr. Schroeder is an honest man, naive enough to believe that his government always stands on the moral high ground. I used to believe the same thing when I was an adolescent.
Mr. Schroeder's implicit argument is that the government can do no wrong. Does he realize that it was uniformed agents of the official German government that dragged innocent Jews from their homes in the middle of the night? Is he aware of the growing number of videos on the internet which document abuse and the use of excessive force by the police? Does Mr. Schroeder acknowledge that we can "alter or abolish" our government when it becomes destructive of our rights, or does he cling to the myopic philosophy which asserts "my country, right or wrong"?
He begins his commentary by asking, "Do we really want to live in a society where one group declares part of the Constitution wrong...?" Congress was prohibited from eliminating slavery prior to 1808. Does he feel that slavery was acceptable until that date because the Constitution includes a provision to protect it? Would he prefer to continue the practice of slavery rather than declare that clause of the Constitution morally abhorrent?
The Constitution grants Congress the right to "coin money, and regulate the value thereof". James Madison's notes of the convention document that delegates were vociferously opposed to allowing Congress to print - and therefore inflate - our currency. If Congress never had the authority to print money, can Mr. Schroeder explain how Congress could legitimately give that authority to the Federal Reserve?
Congress has an obligation to declare war before we send our sons and daughters to die for our cause. The last time Congress had the dignity to do so was prior to World War II. Does Mr. Schroeder expect me to express my support for my government as it blatantly ignores its constitutional mandate, endangering foreign, innocent civilians at taxpayer's expense?
Mr. Schroeder attempts to discredit the militia by quoting the Articles of Freedom, mocking those who openly promise to defend themselves from a government no longer limited by the Constitution. Does Mr. Schroeder agree with the Indiana Supreme Court which ruled that the people of Indiana have no right to defend themselves against the police, even if the those officers are acting without a warrant, or actually committing a crime? If Mr. Schroeder thinks that I will choose not to defend myself against the police he is wrong. If he believes that I must forfeit my right to self defense in order to follow what purports to be law, then he has ceased to be honest.
2004 Libertarian nominee for President of the United States
President of the Continental Congress 2009 which created the Articles of Freedom