dailybaldwin.com

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091204.html

I was led to Christ at the tender age of 5 while sitting on my mother’s lap.
I was raised in a devout, churchgoing Christian home. I have been in Gospel
ministry all of my adult life (I am 57 years old). I have attended or have
degrees and/or diplomas from 4 fundamentalist/evangelical colleges or Bible
schools. I have been the Senior Pastor of a local Independent Baptist
congregation for 34 years and counting. I have spoken in churches and
Christian gatherings all over the country. I say all of that simply to
provide my Christian credentials (in much the same way that the Apostle Paul
provided his Jewish credentials in Philippians 3:5,6). As such, I believe I
know something about the attitudes, conduct, philosophy, mindset, etc., of
America’s Christians. I am not an outsider; I speak as one within the
conservative/fundamentalist Christian camp.

As it relates to the rightful understanding of following Christ’s
instruction that we are to be “salt” and “light” (and what that means for us
Americans), and properly rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God
what is God’s (and knowing the difference), there are basically 2 groups:
those who sincerely want to help America maintain its foundational
principles and those who, frankly, are too preoccupied (or cowardly) to give
much thought to it one way or another. I would say that the first group is
slightly larger than the second group. The problem is, among the first
group, there is a vast void of understanding regarding exactly how we are to
implement and carry forth the principles of Christian liberty–which are the
principles upon which America was built, of course.

As I see it, there are two glaring obstacles that keep today’s Christians
from being truly effectual and influential in helping to restore America’s
freedoms and founding principles. And let’s be honest enough to admit that,
for the most part, today’s Christians (including our pastors) are
ineffective and irrelevant in providing any meaningful solutions to
America’s many problems. Sadly, more often than not, we are little more than
gullible pawns, which wily and wicked politicians use to advance their own
nefarious agendas.

Obstacle Number One: America’s current generation of Christians has allowed
itself to become pathetically ignorant as to the Biblical, Natural Law
principles of liberty and government. And when it comes to America’s
historical principles of self-government and federalism, the ignorance
quotient goes up even further.

It is really sad: we Christians (including our Christian pastors) know
virtually nothing of real American history, law, government, etc. For
example, I’m not sure that we can begin to remotely understand what Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence if we have not read John
Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. I’m not sure we can begin to
comprehend the American philosophy of government if we have not read George
Washington’s Farewell Address. Without reading The Federalist Papers, one
cannot begin to properly appreciate the US Constitution and the principles
upon which it was predicated. Without reading Pastor Jonas Clark, one cannot
understand what really happened at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge.
Without reading Alexander Stephens’ History of the United States, it is
doubtful that one can truly understand or appreciate the principles of
federalism and State sovereignty. And how many of us have read even one of
the above? And this does not even scratch the surface of necessary
knowledge.

Let’s admit it: today’s Christians, for the most part, are operating in a
vacuum of truth and understanding. Without a firm grasp of necessary truth,
how can we know what to do, who to believe, or how to act?

Accordingly, smooth-talking “conservative” politicians who know how to use
religious clichés and terminology to gain our support and votes easily dupe
the vast majority of sincere Christians. But it is actually worse than that.
We Christians are, for the most part, unwitting contributors to the demise
of freedom and rise of oppression in our land.

For example, Americans–including Christian Americans–lost more freedoms
under former President George W. Bush than under any President since Lyndon
Johnson, or maybe since Franklin Roosevelt. Yet, even today, most
evangelical Christians continue to hold Bush in high esteem. They seem to be
totally oblivious to the fact that Bush set the table and provided the
opportunities for virtually everything that President Barack Obama is
currently doing to advance socialism and globalism in our country. For the
most part, Christians seemed to never notice that President Bush did almost
nothing to change the course and direction set by his predecessor, President
Bill Clinton. And liberals are just now beginning to wake up to the reality
that, at the executive level, Obama is doing precious little to change the
course set by George Bush–including escalating Bush’s war (now Obama’s war)
in the Middle East. Will the American people never awaken to the fact that,
for the most part, the only difference between these two parties at the
national level is one of degrees, not direction?

At the national level, Democrats want to expand Big Government for the
benefit of advancing the Welfare State, while Republicans want to expand Big
Government for the benefit of advancing the Warfare State, but both want to
expand Big Government. Make no mistake about it: neither major party in
Washington, D.C., has any intention of returning America to the
constitutional principles of limited government and federalism. But do
Christians see this? No, they do not!

For the most part, today’s Christians seem to have the attitude that G.O.P.
stands for God’s Own Party. That the Republican Party in Washington, D.C.,
is equally culpable for the destruction of liberty and constitutional
government never seems to once enter their minds. The sum total of their
patriotism seems to be voting Republican, watching Fox News, and paying
taxes. The shallowness of today’s pastors and Christians is a major obstacle
preventing us from doing much of anything that would actually contribute to
good government.

Obstacle Number Two: Today’s Christians are not willing to support the
principles they profess to believe.

I could not count the number of times that a sincere Christian brother or
sister has asked me, “What is wrong with my pastor? Why does he refuse to
take a stand?” or questions to that effect. Dear Christian Friend, as kindly
as I know how to say it, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

I ask you, Why should your pastor “take a stand”? Why should he “get
involved”? You and all the others of his congregation are more than willing
to support his ministry the way it is. You sit under his preaching. You
follow his leadership in the church. You give your tithes and offerings to
support his vision for God’s work.

Look around you. What do you see? You see the Joel Osteen-type churches
bulging out at the seams. Churches–where pastors are unwilling to get
involved in anything “controversial,” where pastors are content to stay
completely disengaged from anything that might be deemed “political,” and
where pastors refuse to even hear the truth of what is really going on–are
filled every Sunday. They have the largest crowds, biggest offerings, and
most ornate buildings. Why, in the name of common sense, would you expect
your pastor to “take a stand” or “get involved”? Why should he? You have–by
your support, attendance, and offerings–clearly told him that you like him
just the way he is!

Yet, throughout history, it has been pastors and preachers that have led the
great civil movements and revolutions–including our own American
Revolution. It is no hyperbole to say that without the leadership, courage,
and resolve of Colonial America’s clergymen, we would still be a Crown
colony of England, with no Declaration of Independence, no US Constitution,
no Bill of Rights, and little freedom. And, it’s not like we do not have the
same kind of lionhearted preachers today as we did in days of old, because
we do. All across America, there are hundreds of Bible preaching men from
virtually every Christian denomination who are more than willing to “take a
stand” and “get involved.” As an example, go to my Black Regiment list and
see the names of over 200 pastors who are out front in the fight for right.
The problem is, the vast majority of America’s Christians today will not
support these stalwart spiritual statesmen.

See the Black Regiment list at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php

So, Christian friend, why do you continue to worship under the leadership of
a pastor who has no intention of standing in the gap for our country’s
freedom? Why do you continue to give your tithes and offerings to such a
church? It is time for Christians who know and care about what is going on
to GET OUT of these spineless churches! If you really believe the principles
you profess, how can you continue to deny those principles by staying in a
church that has no intention of teaching those principles?

If you cannot find a patriot-pastor of your denomination, look for one
outside your denomination. I would rather worship with a man with whom I
disagree on secondary doctrines (but who is firm on the fundamentals, of
course), but who is willing to stand for truth and freedom, than worship
with a man of my preferred denomination, but who will do nothing to confront
the evils that are currently destroying our republic.

Good grief! We have thousands of evangelical pastors who are willing to
follow a man such as Rick Warren; a man who has become a partner with one of
the most devilish and sinister organizations in the world–an organization
that is actively working against the principles of freedom and independence,
and in support of the principles of globalism and universalism: the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Remember, it was Rear Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of
the Navy, who rightly said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign
Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national
independence and submergence into an all-powerful, one world government.”
Most Christians readily discern any attempt at global government to be “of
the devil.” Yet, Rick Warren is now an active member of the one organization
whose major claim to fame is its incessant promotion of globalism.

How can any sincere Christian who is even remotely aware of what is going
on–and who truly cares about the preservation of freedom–follow any pastor
who follows someone such as Rick Warren? Yet, the Warren-type churches are
flourishing all over America; and, at the same time, many of those
congregants complain that their pastor is not “taking a stand.”

So, why don’t YOU take a stand by GETTING OUT of these soft, straddling,
sugary, superficial, shallow, saltless churches?

It is infinitely more important that you be in a church that preaches the
truth and takes a stand than that your teens attend “the most exciting youth
program,” or that your kids are in one of these glorified playgrounds
(called “children’s ministries”) so they can play games and stay
entertained, or that your church has a softball team, or that it has the
prettiest buildings, or that it has music you think is “just right,” or that
it is the “premier church in town” for social gatherings or business
contacts.

If you live near Phoenix, Arizona, why not attend Pastor Coleman’s church,
35th Avenue Baptist Church? If you live near Three Rivers, California, why
not attend The Church of Kaweah, which is pastored by Warren Mark Campbell?
If you live near Fort Myers, Florida, why not support Pastor James Riddle at
Morningstar Baptist Church? If you live near Savannah, Georgia, why not
support Pastor John Weaver’s Dominion Ministry? If you live near Ocean
Springs, Mississippi, why not help Pastor John Mayfield’s Chapel of Faith?
If you live near Kalispell, Montana, why not support Pastor Jim Huff and
Bible Presbyterian Church? If you live near Omaha, Nebraska, why not support
Pastor Phillip Kayser and Dominion Covenant Church? If you live in the
Oklahoma City area why not help Pastor Jason Murphy at New Life Church in
Collinsville, or Pastor Paul Blair at Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, or
Dr. Steve Kern and Olivet Baptist Church in Oklahoma City? If you live near
Greenville, South Carolina, why not help Pastor Tony Romo at South Pointe
Baptist Church in Pelzer, or Pastor Mark Dibler at Bible Baptist Church in
Pickens. If you live near Madisonville/Athens/Etowah, Tennessee, why not
support Pastor Jim Headings at the Piney Grove Community Church in
Englewood? Daniel New has a home church in Hamilton County, Texas. Clell
Drumheller pastors Truth in Love Ministries in northwest Houston. Why not
support Pastor Brandon Teague at Faith Baptist Church in Paris, Texas?
Pastor Butch Paugh is a patriot-pastor in Nettie, West Virginia. Pastor
Wayne Sedlak is a patriot-pastor who ministers at Reformation Hope Church in
West Bend, Wisconsin.

These are only a handful of the hundreds of dynamic patriot-pastors across
America who are truly “taking a stand.” Ask yourself, what could the Church
do if, instead of Rick Warren and Joel Osteen, men like those listed above
pastored churches that numbered in the tens of thousands? Imagine what could
happen if Black Regiment-type churches were the largest churches in a
majority of the great metropolises throughout America?

I say again (as kindly as I know how): if you stay in, support, attend, and
give your offerings to these churches that are pastored by men who will not
take a stand, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

And though I would prefer that everyone have a local church they could
support in good conscience, there are hundreds of people across America who,
because they cannot find such a church, worship online with me and my church
every Sunday morning, as we Livestream our service. We do this specifically
for those who cannot find a church that will take a stand in their area.

To tune in to our Livestreamed service each Sunday morning at approximately
10:30am (CST), go to:

http://crossroadbaptist.net/live.html

If Christians today are to regain any semblance of relevancy in preserving
America’s liberties, they must do two things: (1) immediately become
acquainted with the foundational principles that created this country, and
(2) get serious about supporting only those churches and ministries that
truly know what’s going on and are willing to courageously stand in the gap.
Anything short of this is pious-sounding rhetoric. And rhetoric will do
nothing to help us–not now, anyway.

P.S. Educating Americans about their history is what motivated me to compile
THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. We are almost sold out of the current printing, and
this is the final announcement. If you want to obtain copies of THE FREEDOM
DOCUMENTS, which contains 50 of the finest historical documents of American
history in one volume, you must order NOW! Order here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: Freedom, Leadership | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091201.html

By now, most readers are familiar with the story of how a Virginia couple,
Michaele and Tareq Salahi, crashed the White House State Dinner last Tuesday
evening. President and Mrs. Obama were entertaining Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh in the first official State Dinner of the new administration.
The Salahis were not on the invited guest list, but were still allowed to
walk right into the White House. They even had face-to-face conversations
with both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Photographs of the
Salahis with the President and Vice President have been published in
numerous newspapers and on hundreds of web sites.

I wonder if the American people are thinking this episode through? Think of
it: in the post-9/11 world, a world that has invented the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
body scanners, retina readers, the Patriot Act, hundreds of laws and
regulations restricting the freedoms and liberties of the American people,
thousands of cameras photographing our public movements, and satellite spy
devices, a couple can walk right into the White House and meet the President
and Vice President without being invited!

Is there something wrong with this picture, or what?

I well remember what I had to go through when I was an invited guest of
then-Vice President George H. W. Bush at the White House. My wife and I
joined several others for a luncheon with Vice President Bush and his wife,
Barbara. Later that day, we were in a crowd of several hundred who got to
meet President Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, security was tight.

Upon arriving, we had to show the proper credentials to White House
security, along with a photo ID and the personal invitation that had been
sent to us ahead of time. I remember how some of the folks who had actually
received invitations were denied entrance due to bureaucratic mix-ups or
unintentional lapses in proper protocols. And these were people who really
did have an invitation to be there. I can tell you this: there was
absolutely no way that an uninvited person could have gained access to the
White House that day. And remember: that was nearly two decades BEFORE 9/11!

That an uninvited couple could be granted access to the President and Vice
President in this day and time is more than a “fluke.” It betrays something
much deeper.

For the last 8 years, the American people have been told they must sacrifice
certain liberties in order that the federal government might protect them.
And for the most part, the American people have been happy to accommodate
this incessant intrusion into their personal liberties. They know the feds
are monitoring their emails, personal phone conversations, and even their
personal letters when received from overseas. They have sat silently as
their banking institutions have monitored and reported virtually any and all
financial transactions to the federal government. In today’s super-security
world, one cannot even cash a check without showing the bank teller his or
her driver’s license, which is recorded and made available to the feds.
Sometimes, we are even required to provide our thumbprints. Beyond that,
even certain service personnel that must come into our homes to provide
in-home repair services, home inspections, or general services are often
required to report what they see to various law enforcement authorities. All
of this is done in the name of “national security.”

All the while, America’s federal buildings today more resemble castles of
ancient Europe than they do buildings that house the people’s servants.
Concrete barriers along with super-reinforced, “bomb proof” structures
remind one of castles of old, with their guard towers and crocodile-filled
moats. Today, people must walk through metal-detectors and surrender their
pocketknives to even visit their local supervisor of elections office (or
just about any other public office, for that matter). Again, this is all
done under the rubric of “homeland security.”

In the name of “national security,” veterans who have been accused of some
kind of domestic disturbance or who have affirmatively answered an ambiguous
question on a VA form regarding whether they have feelings of “anger” or
“depression” are having their right to keep and bear arms stripped away.
That’s right, in the name of “homeland security,” some of the very men who
were entrusted with lethal weapons to fight America’s wars are now being
told they are not fit to purchase or possess their own firearms.

Yet, in spite of all of the above, an uninvited couple is allowed to calmly
walk right past Secret Service personnel and have personal audiences with
the President and Vice President of the United States in what is ostensibly
the most heavily-guarded, tightly secured building in the country: the White
House.

Furthermore, this story comes on the heels of the mass shooting on what one
would think would be a rather secure location: the US Army base at Fort
Hood, Texas. And, have we forgotten the fellow who brought a gun into the
Capitol Building (the home of the US Congress) in Washington, D.C., a few
years ago and killed two police officers?

Dear Reader, ask yourself this question, Do you really think those schmucks
in Washington, D.C., actually believe that protecting you and me is more
important than protecting American soldiers, US congressmen, and especially
the President of the United States? “Are you serious?” (To quote Nancy
Pelosi.) The truth is, to the elites in DC, you and I are expendable
commodities. In fact, to some of the soulless creatures running things, you
and I are worth more dead than alive (but that’s a topic better discussed at
a later date).

The point is, all this talk about “national security” is simply a ruse for
Big Government elitists to steal our liberties and make slaves out of us.
They don’t care about security; all they care about is POWER.

So, the next time you are required to be strip-searched by an airport
screener, or to surrender your pocketknife at your local county
commissioner’s office, or to show your driver’s license to your bank teller,
or to submit to a random police checkpoint; the next time you make a phone
call that you know is monitored by a federal agent (and they all are), or
drive under a video camera, or visit these castle-esque federal buildings,
remember Michaele and Tareq Salahi. And, if you are old enough, remember the
time in America when we really were the “land of the free.” And also
remember that it’s not security they seek–it’s the abolition of our
liberty.

P.S. This is the final week to order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS: 50 of America’s
finest historical documents in one volume and available only here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

But I warn you, reading THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS will only remind you what
America used to be, so read them at your own risk!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: Freedom, Independence | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091120.html

By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of
the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will
not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized
tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are
extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.

Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that
emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers.
For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops.
Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the
Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually
every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In
recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.

So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly
qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This
makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from
carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not
being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all,
judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the
courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers,
airline pilots, and teachers.

Question 2:  If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of
technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers;
and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of
the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in
America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous
laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so
that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it
that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
charge gave him a pass?

Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had
attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that
numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which,
according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a
presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that
Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long
history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer
to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US
military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we
have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only
senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea
Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and
supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically
correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black
Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico
pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”

As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he
must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not
kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the
floor from laughing.)

To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone
coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is
harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional,
or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the
mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law
Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of
what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?

If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and
every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort
Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal
government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of
thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot
Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly
secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can
anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might
pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws,
which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of
Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and
crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve
got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties.
If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.

Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only
two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times)
into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I
must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was
allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at
least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of
ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken
out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell
you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they
know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are
trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small
group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from
multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been
subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have
been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet,
we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers
inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and
then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes
absolutely no sense to me. None.

Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the
scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from
various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–it would have made
unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The
“one shooter with two handguns” explanation makes no sense.

I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course,
some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained
warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed
environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian
passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on
board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking–a
task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained
professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a
large building–tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two
handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the
building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the
events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which,
after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is
becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven’t
believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me
since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves
only to further fuel my skepticism.

P.S. And one more time: we are shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now: 50 of
America’s great historical documents in one volume. Our supply will last
only a couple of weeks. These make terrific Christmas gifts and can be found
only here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Or, to read my initial column that describes THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091113.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: America | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091117.html

According to a report in World Net Daily, “Troops in the United States’
USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North
American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors,
giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.

“The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue
colors typical to the U.N.

“It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit’s service in
North Africa in World War II.”

The report also states, “The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image
superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts
its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain
defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the
United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif.”

See the report at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115275

As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command
“created to respond to national emergencies in North America.” Readers
should also be aware that the US and Canada signed an agreement earlier this
year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces
of the other country during a “domestic civil emergency, EVEN ONE THAT DOES
NOT INVOLVE A CROSS-BORDER CRISIS.” (Emphasis added.)

Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sister organizations. This
objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn’t
paying attention–or has an ulterior motive for denying it.

In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this
burgeoning North American Union on my web site. I encourage readers to
review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it
at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/nau.html

Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian
Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed
the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco,
Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR’s Task Force report entitled “Creating
a North American Community,” which was issued just prior to the Waco
gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge,
oversight, or consent of the US Congress–or any Canadian or Mexican
legislative body either, for that matter.

As the WND report states, “The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a
North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA
into continental political integration through the creation of some 20
trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American
Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business
executives–10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three
countries.”

In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or
Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is
pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his
predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush.
(And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected
last year.)

For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C.,
are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR’s
philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military
command as USNORTHCOM–and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with
UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch–without the slightest
protest from virtually any US congressman or senator, demonstrates the
apathy of Washington elitists regarding America’s merger into a
multinational governing structure.

Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the US Chamber of Commerce,
the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the
exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid
him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education
Association–along with the vast majority of America’s top educational
institutions, and even America’s leading churchmen (for example: mega-church
pastor and Pied Piper author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman,
Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every
major institution in America is betraying our country’s sovereignty and
independence.

Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against
international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President
Obama’s policy reversal to continue President Bush’s plan allowing Mexican
trucks to roll down US highways? Where is Big Labor’s opposition to Obama’s
decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber
of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?

Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But
this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar,
the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of
which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear
mongering over super-hyped “pandemics” such as the Swine Flu, the push for
universal health care, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing US
sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.

Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on
is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously,
an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their
pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grassroots Tea
Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and
establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.

If America’s pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for
freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could–almost
single-handedly–turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the
rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson’s “spirit of resistance” alive.

As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the
North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.

P.S. We are shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now! Our supply will only last a
couple of weeks. These make terrific Christmas gifts. To order, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Or, to read my initial column that describes THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091113.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: America, Freedom, Globalism | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091110.html

A recent column co-authored by John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré struck me. They
titled their column, “What makes a ‘great’ president?”

See it at:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114683

The basic thrust of the column was to examine the qualities that make one a
“great” President. They start by examining the Presidency of our 11th
President, James K. Polk. They note that Polk is commonly regarded as being
one of America’s top 12 greatest Presidents. To use their words, “between
eighth and 12th among our greatest presidents.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré note that Polk was undoubtedly a man of outstanding
Christian character and faith. They say that Polk was “the only president
who kept and fulfilled every one of his campaign promises.” They observe him
to be a man “with a Puritan work ethic, [who] literally worked himself to
death as president, retired from office in broken health and died 103 days
later.”

But Polk also greatly expanded the power of the Presidency. “In 1846,
President Polk sent American troops into disputed territory where they were
almost certain to become embroiled in hostilities, and then demanded that
Congress recognize that a state of war already existed. Increasingly with
Polk’s presidency and thereafter, the president set national policy and the
Congress rubber-stamped the president’s decisions.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré note that the people who are charged with rating our
Presidents are commonly academicians, “and as such they tend to be left of
center. They believe in centralized power, and they therefore admire
presidents who increased federal power and concentrated it in the
presidency.”

In this regard, Eidsmoe and Dupré are 100% correct. Look at the heroes of
liberal historians and who do you find? Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and
Franklin Roosevelt. Not by accident, these same historians will extol the
virtues of Hammurabi, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, and Napoleon.
All these men have one thing in common: they were responsible for expanding
(either by force or fraud) a centralized government.

Eidsmoe and Dupré correctly challenge the standard by which greatness is
determined and offer alternatives to the avant-garde, politically correct
formula. They proffer that “the truly great men of history are those who
have defended and preserved individual liberty by resisting the increase and
centralization of government power.”

To that I say a hearty “AMEN.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré then offer their own list of great men, which includes
Judas Maccabeus, Cato and Cicero, Hermann the Liberator, Archbishop Stephen
Langton of Canterbury, William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, and George
Washington and Patrick Henry.

This brought to mind the fact that, several months ago, I had asked my
friend, Howard Phillips, to rate his favorite US Presidents. This was his
response:

1) George Washington: for the standard he established during his Presidency.
2) Thomas Jefferson: for his commitment to religious liberty and for
recognizing the role of the states as he spelled out in the Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions.
3) Andrew Jackson: for his opposition to the second bank of the United
States.
4) John Tyler: for his role in the admission of Texas to the Union.
5) James Polk: for advancing America’s “manifest destiny.”
6) Grover Cleveland: for his fidelity for the Constitution of the United
States.
7) Calvin Coolidge: for his commitment to low taxes and limits on Federal
spending as well as for his good character.

As for my personal list of greatest Presidents, it would largely mirror
Howard’s list, with one deviation. I would suggest:

1) George Washington: America’s greatest President, without whom this
republic would not exist. His “Farewell Address” is the greatest political
speech ever delivered on American soil and should be regarded as
“must-reading” for every American citizen.
2) Thomas Jefferson: America’s greatest defender of individual liberty and
states’ rights.
3) James Monroe: for his leadership in establishing America’s strategically
important “Monroe Doctrine.”
4) Andrew Jackson: for standing up against the bankers.
5) John Tyler: for defying his own party (Whigs) and twice vetoing the
incorporation of the US Bank. And also for supporting the Southern cause for
secession.
6) Grover Cleveland: for his honesty and devotion to the US Constitution.
7) Calvin Coolidge: for his dogged determination to limit taxes and federal
spending.

As for my suggested list of personal heroes, those are already chronicled on
my Wikipedia page. See it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin

Interestingly enough, Dupré and Eidsmoe’s hero candidates, William Wallace
and Patrick Henry, also grace my list of heroes as posted on my Wikipedia
page.

One will notice that there are hardly any modern-day heroes mentioned on my
list. I also observed that there were no modern-day heroes mentioned by John
Eidsmoe and Ben Dupré in their column. Indeed. Where are the real heroes in
national public office today?

Our national leaders (from both parties) seem to be shortsighted
opportunists, possessing little regard for their oaths to the US
Constitution, the principles of decency, or even plain, old-fashioned common
sense. Both major parties in Washington, D.C., offer the American people
varying degrees of socialism. Neither party demonstrates even tacit devotion
to constitutional government. Federalism and limited government have all but
disappeared under the oversight of both Republican and Democratic leaders.
These disastrous Presidents (from Johnson, Nixon, and Carter to Clinton and
Bush I & II) calmly leave office with no regret or remorse for the
devastation, death, and deception that they inflicted upon the country. They
live in the lap of luxury and comfort without the slightest tinge of
conscience as to the massive destruction done to our Constitution, not to
mention our economy, security, and way of life. Beyond that, our congressmen
and senators are mostly miscreants in the similitude of Nancy Pelosi and
Lindsey Graham.

It’s hard to imagine there was a time when giants once lived among us. It’s
hard to recall a day when the word “hero” really meant something. Today,
everyone is called a hero. Well, as one Marine Corps veteran recently said,
“If everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.” Amen!

Perhaps more than anything, America needs great leaders once again. Men who
are not enamored with power and wealth. Men who are more concerned with
honoring their word and preserving the Constitution than they are being
reelected and receiving a government pension. Men who really do respect the
people that elected them. Men who are willing to be unpopular, if that is
the cost of honesty and integrity. Men who know the difference between the
eternal and the temporal. And, yes, men who know the meaning of the word
AMERICAN.

Is the day of great leaders past? With few exceptions, it would appear so.
And that–more than anything else–is why we are in the mess we are in
today.

So, while you are saying your prayers tonight, don’t forget to ask God to
give us some men like Washington and Jefferson. We could sure use them about
now.

P.S. It’s not too late to cast your vote for me (or someone else) as Ron
Paul’s running mate in 2012 at:
http://tinyurl.com/yfmndfr

P.P.S. THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS will be ready to ship in a few days. To get
ahead of the Christmas rush, go here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: Leadership | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091106.html

According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center’s web site,
“Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the ‘Firearms Freedom
Act’ (HB-315) seeks ‘To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide
that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and
remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under
Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words
“Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm
manufactured and sold in Ohio.’”

The report went on to say, “While the HB315’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. It specifically states:

“‘The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the
Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly
if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States
has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce
pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm
accessories, and ammunition.’

“Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of
such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states
to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as
not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.”

See the report at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-ohio

Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and
Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced
similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa

As you might suspect, the federal government doesn’t take too kindly to
these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms
dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll
wrote that “Federal law supersedes the Act.”

The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as
correctly stating, “Their [ATF’s] view is that the states exist for the
administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any
conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the
latter.

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on
the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal
officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit
them.”

Ah! But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring
the Constitution for decades–so much so that if there is going to be any
restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have
to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.” And
they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the
message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a
line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and
bear arms.

At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or
target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states
against federal tyranny.

The Second Amendment itself 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.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the
purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure “the security of a
FREE STATE.” (Emphasis added.) “Free from what?” you ask. Free from federal
tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be
national government.

The founders–even the Centralists of the day–all acknowledged that the
right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the
people against government tyranny. Observe:

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army
of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the
people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior
to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” (Alexander Hamilton, The
Federalist Papers, Number 29)

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of
noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of
tyranny.” (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12,
1789)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to
disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the
soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of
the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
(Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress,
Freeman’s Journal, February 20, 1778)

Coxe also said, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly
before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must
be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next
article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private
arms.” (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

So, for now, 10 states have proposed–and 2 have passed–a Firearms Freedom
Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution
regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this
case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective
State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C.,
that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the
Constitution of the United States.

In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an
open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:

“On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty
Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a
committee which has as its charge to:

*Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
*Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their
friendship,
*Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses
of authority by the federal government, and
*Seek repeal of the assumption of the powers and the imposed mandates.”

In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, “The role of our American
government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by
our creator must be restored.”

The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, “The Constitution
does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not
give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does
not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is
verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of
the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

“With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the
Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state
sovereignty–and unconstitutional.”

See Rep. Lynn’s letter at:
http://tinyurl.com/10amdmt-ffa-rep-lynn

This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get
red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe
this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, “Let it come! I
repeat it, Sir, let it come!”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: 2nd Amendment | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091103.html

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an attorney who received
his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University
in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida
State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the
author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.
Tim is also regarded as one of America’s leading spokesmen for State
sovereignty.]

After the release of my last column  “Freedom’s Destruction by
Constitutional De-Construction,” I received so many responses to my
statement, “The people of the states [must] once again reject this national
form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism,” that
I felt the need to develop this subject more thoroughly. The question I
received was: “How can I choose federalism once again?” Indeed, answering
this question is crucial to injecting a cure for the sickness and illness of
tyrannical, national control over the people of the states. Undoubtedly, we
are going to need an acute dosage to even begin ridding ourselves of the
disease destroying the body of our once-great federation.

(See Tim’s column at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091016.html )

The reality is, the answer is not complicated. The more relevant question
will likely be, what portion of the cure(s) must we implement. This will
require a diagnosis of the degree and seriousness of the disease’s attack on
our Confederate Republic. Let us analyze briefly the seriousness of the
attack so that we may proportionally and accordingly respond and defend
against the encroachments on our constitutional freedoms, guarantees and
powers.

Keeping in line with my last article and the position that the national
system of government (under which the United States currently operates) is
completely contrary to the federal system that our founders and
Constitution’s ratifiers bequeathed to us, a fact is established: We the
People of the United States of America have been denied our natural and
compactual rights under God and the Constitution. Again, how can it be
argued that it is now legally and morally right and proper to do what our
Constitution did not create or authorize? How can freedom exist in a country
where we supposedly believe in the “consent of the governed” when that
consent has been usurped by force? Consequently, our right of defense is
activated.

Make no mistake about this: the US Constitution did NOT create a national
government, but rather created a federal government whereby the states were
coequal with the federal government in the exercise and defense of the
powers granted to them by the people of each State. The founders and
ratifiers of the Constitution expressly rejected the notion that the federal
government has supreme sovereignty. The issue here is not whether there are
“national components” of the procedures in the system, such as voting for
the House of Representatives by the people. We know that the founders
implemented a few elements of national-type procedure in the US
Constitution, just as they did even in the Articles of Confederation.

Rather, the bottom-line issue is, whether the states have coequal power to
exercise and defend their powers–and their citizens–and whether the
Federal government has the power to force the states to accept its own
interpretation and (de)construction of the Constitution. If the union of the
United States was formed by the people of the states in their capacities as
the sovereign of each State, creating a FEDERAL government, then the states
are coequal in power and do have the right to exercise and defend their
powers. If the union of the United States was formed by the whole of the
people as a mass body politic, without regard to the sovereign states,
creating a NATIONAL government, then the states are mere corporations of the
parent company, called the Federal government.

I need not expound the answer to this question here, because I have done so
in numerous other articles before, proving that the union was formed by the
states as states, and not by the people as one nation. The conclusion is
more than provable that the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution did
not create a nation, but created a federation, and actually expected the
states to be the active guardians of freedom for their own people. Thus,
what methods can we use today to once again choose federalism over
nationalism?

There are five basic methods by which the people of the states can counter
the attacks of the federal government’s prolonged tyrannical usurpations of
power. They are: (1) Change of Politicians; (2) Checks and Balances; (3)
Constitutional Amendment; (4) Constitutional Convention; and (5) Revolution.

1. Change of Politicians. Alexander Hamilton notes in Federalist Paper 21,
“The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative
constitution, is a change of men.” This method of cure is no mystery, and
has been the mode of “change” in the US for the past 50 years. Dare I say,
this method has proven to be anything but effectual?  Please show me how
changing the Federal government from Republican to Democrat and vice versa
has done ANYTHING to reinstitute our federal form of government, provided by
the Constitution. Both parties in the federal government do absolutely
nothing to revert rightful power to the people of the states. I shall not
waste any more valuable time or words on this ineffectual method. (Then
again, if we had a majority of congressmen such as Ron Paul in Washington,
D.C., we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.)

2. Checks and Balances. There are two types of checks and balances: (a)
federal against federal, and (b) State against federal. Since the early
1900s, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal
government have usurped power from the states. To say that the people of the
states can count on the three branches of the federal government to check
each other in this regard and to maintain a Federal form of government is a
joke. All three branches maintain that they possess the sole power (through
the judiciary) to interpret and construe the Constitution, and that all
others (i.e., the states) must submit thereto. This is in fact the very
definition of nationalism, which the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected.

As for the states’ check against federal usurpations of power, most ignorant
or disillusioned people would say that they lost that right when the
Confederate States of America lost the Civil War in 1865, and from that
point onward, the states could not check the federal government through
arresting action. They suggest that to conquer equals the right to rule: a
notion completely rejected in American jurisprudence. Time does not allow me
to expand on this erroneous doctrine, so I will simply say, How ludicrous!

The fact is, the Federalist Paper writers expected the states to be the
guardians against federal tyranny. This necessarily meant (as they
expressed) that the states develop actual arms of resistance to such
encroachments. This, of course, shows, once again, the FEDERAL character and
nature of our form of government: the states were not subservient to the
federal government’s dictates, but were coequal in power to protect their
own authority and freedoms through their State Constitutions.

Thankfully, we are seeing a current resurgence of State activism to be the
voice and arm of the people to protect and perpetuate the US Constitution.
While the federal v. federal checks and balances have proven to be less than
fruitful, the states today are taking their role more seriously in this
regard, just as our founders and ratifiers demanded. It is this State power
of active and passive nullification and resistance that will once again
protect federalism and freedom in America. Therefore, it is this State power
that affords us the best opportunity to defend liberty and restore
constitutional government, and that we should expend most our energies to
revive.

3. Constitutional Amendment. The US Constitution requires three-fourths of
the STATES to amend the Constitution. Most certainly this is an effective
tool to reverse and prevent evils in government. Our founders expected that
this process would protect freedom and the principles of freedom. However,
as we have seen since 1865, the amendment process has been used only to
increase national power and decrease State power. From the states being
denied power in the Senate, to the income tax and “privileges and
immunities” clause of the fourteenth amendment, the nationalists of the
twentieth century have had their heyday by deepening their squeeze of
national ideals over federal. Ironically, the attack on federalism has come
through the same document protecting our federation: the Constitution. (The
illegality of amendments being used to propagate principles contrary to
freedom and federalism is for another article and discussion.)

That being said: if there were enough states to amend the Constitution to
clarify federal doctrines, limit federal government power, and reinstitute
original State powers, then it most certainly would be beneficial. Praise
the day when such amendments would be ratified.

4. Constitutional Convention. I have heard this method suggested by some in
certain circles of the “patriot movement,” and while I understand the
suggestion of calling a constitutional convention to rewrite the
Constitution, I believe that to do so would likely create more problems than
what we are dealing with today. However, there is a caveat, as explained
below.

To convene a constitutional convention, states would have to send delegates
(just as in 1787) for the purpose of discussing and drafting a Constitution.
Not even getting into the legal issues and ramifications inherent in such a
method, a very practical question is raised: Would a majority of the people
convening at such a monumental event even possess the understanding,
knowledge and belief needed to perpetuate and protect the principles of
freedom and federalism? By virtue of what I see throughout the US today, I
venture to say, No. I believe one of the greatest contributions to national
ideals defeating federal ideals is that the people (including on State
levels) do not understand, know or believe in the principles expressed by
our founders and their forefathers.

Thus, to call a constitutional convention would most certainly place us in a
worse situation. That said, there is one positive that could result from
this. If the Constitution were re-written, it would require the ratification
of the states that wanted to join a new union under a new contract
(Constitution). In this case, it very well may provide a way for the people
of the states to decide which path they wanted to take: national or federal.
In other words, those states that yet wanted to live under Federalism and
not Nationalism could reject the new compact and could declare themselves
independent or seek to form yet another compact among like-minded states.
(Of course, this could happen anyway, per number 2 above–even without a
constitutional convention–making any proposed Con Con a dangerous and
unnecessary action.)

5. Revolution. Revolution simply means a change of power. For those who
perceive such a term as being a bad thing, why do they not then demonize the
current illegitimate system of national government, because this current
system is not the one the states ratified back in 1787? If a squatter turns
your property into his, are you not within your rights to remove him, his
family, his friends and his belongings completely from your property?

It is a fact that Americans (nationalists, federalists and even monarchists)
believed in the natural right of revolution–that every generation has the
God-given right to effect change by revolution when change cannot be
reasonably expected and effected through other more peaceful means.

Coming full circle, then: To what degree has the federal government usurped
its powers? This question is crucial because, as our forefathers expressed,
resistance should be enacted proportionally to the usurpation. While there
may be some who think that “it’s not all that bad,” I suggest that it is
much worse than we think it is. We are at a point today when we are not only
fighting for State sovereignty and a federal system, but we are fighting for
national sovereignty (according to the LAWS OF NATIONS as expressed by
enlightenment philosophers and jurists), against those who desire that the
US become part of the global community.

The evidence around us is beyond reasonable doubt: we the people of the
United States have been fraudulently denied our rights under the laws of
Nature and Nature’s God, and under the US Constitution. The rights to resist
this tyranny already exist. The methods to choose federalism and freedom
have their hands out, offering to help us. It is time we choose which method
or methods will best reach the ultimate goal of freedom. And as I said, I
believe a revival of State sovereignty–whereby states are resolved to
exercise the authority they have per the terms of their charter
(Constitution)–is the most attractive and effective method currently
feasible to reclaim federalism and freedom in America.

Note: Visit Tim’s web site at:

www.libertydefenseleague.com

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: America, Freedom, Independence, Tim Baldwin | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091027.html

In recent columns, I have reported on both the attempted takeover of the
Hardin, Montana, jail facility by a private mercenary force and a Chinese
story that the White House would fly the Communist Chinese flag in honor of
the 60th anniversary of Mao’s revolution of 1949, which brought the Reds to
power (initially killing as many as 3 million Chinese people, and resulting
in the deaths of more than 50 million people during those 60 years).

See those columns at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090909.html

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091009.html

I promised readers that I would keep an eye out for these stories and
provide necessary updates. Well, here are those updates.

The Hardin, Montana, Update:

On Friday, October 9, the private mercenary company that had attempted to
take over the Hardin jail facility, American Police Force (APF), announced
that it was pulling out of negotiations on contracts with the Two Rivers
Authority (the economic development arm of the city of Hardin) to operate
the facility. This announcement was made after my column was released and
many other news sources, Internet bloggers, and talk radio hosts blitzed the
story to the public. We showed how APF’s frontman, Serbian immigrant Michael
Hilton, had a criminal record, and is, in fact, currently facing criminal
charges for fraud in California. We also reported that APF had fraudulently
attempted to identify itself as the “City of Hardin Police Department” by
patrolling Hardin’s streets with Mercedes-Benz SUVs with Hardin police
markings stenciled on the sides of the vehicles. (The city of Hardin does
not have a police department. The city is policed by the Big Horn County
Sheriff’s Office.)

On October 15, the Flathead (County) Beacon reported that the company’s
former attorney took the last two Mercedes SUVs brought to Hardin by APF.
“Becky Shay, APF spokeswoman, says she gave the keys to Maziar Mafi on
Tuesday,” reported the Beacon. Shay said Mafi was the guarantor on the
vehicles’ purchase.

In the meantime, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock has launched an
investigation into the Hardin matter. According to the AG’s office, the
investigation is predicated upon concerns that the company might be
violating the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. As
far as I know, that investigation is ongoing.

On October 15, the Flathead Beacon also reported, “Officials in the rural
town of Hardin say they’ve received new interest in their empty, 464-bed
jail in the wake of [the] collapsed deal with a California company run by a
man with a history of fraud.

“Saying there’s ‘no such thing as bad publicity,’ Al Peterson with the
city’s economic development agency says at least four corrections
corporations and agencies have asked for more information about the
facility.

“Peterson, who is also superintendent of Hardin schools, declined to offer
more details. He also acknowledged the city’s two-year effort to fill the
jail suffered a major setback from its dealings with Santa Ana-based
American Police Force.”

If you would like to learn a little more about what goes on behind the
scenes in these Hardin-type fiascos, here is a web article well worth your
attention. It reveals how unscrupulous private developers prey on small,
impoverished towns.

http://tinyurl.com/private-prison-salesmen

The Red Chinese Flag Flap Update:

As I reported in my initial column regarding this event, “According to China
Daily, ‘Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a
ceremony in front of the US President’s residence to celebrate the 60th
anniversary of the founding of PRC [People’s Republic of China] . . .’”

Whether China Daily misconstrued the story, or the White House changed its
mind under pressure regarding allowing the communist flag to fly over the
South Lawn, the Red Chinese flag did indeed fly near the White House, but
not over the South Lawn.

According to World Net Daily (September 21, 2009), “The flag of the
communist Chinese regime has been raised over festivities near the White
House honoring the restrictive nation’s 60th anniversary, according to
videos posted on YouTube as well as reports from the Chinese Central
television network’s English-language report.”

The Communist flag flew over the Ellipse, the public area adjacent to the
President’s residence. Here is the YouTube video report of the Red flag
event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdXUR7S-x1g

Here is the World Net Daily report:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110583

If that isn’t bad enough, New York’s Empire State Building lit up red and
yellow on Wednesday, September 30 “in honor of the 60th anniversary of
communist China.” (Source: AFP News)

According to AFP News, “The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials
will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in
the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building
representatives said in a statement.”

So, yes, Martha, the communist Chinese flag did indeed fly near the White
House, and in addition, New York’s Empire State Building lit up in the
colors of the communist flag to honor the Bloody Butchers of Beijing.
Incredible!

Then again, maybe we should not be so surprised. Washington, D.C., and Wall
Street have long been coddling and colluding with the communist Chinese.
That both cities would honor the communist flag (under which tens of
thousands of Americans have been killed) seems consistent with their
penchant for turning America into a socialist police State. And if our
Founding Fathers had not established the deep-rooted freedom-principle
extolling the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is very likely
that the communist flag would have already been flying over the White
House–as well as above every schoolyard in America.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

July 31st, 2010 | Category: America, Freedom | Leave a comment

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1561

With much media fanfare, 9 members of a Michigan militia were arrested last
March and charged with “seditious conspiracy”–specifically, plotting to
murder law enforcement officers. Ostensibly, this was supposed to
precipitate some kind of wholesale revolt against the government. Question:
Have any of you heard anyone from the propaganda press corps (national news
media) tell you what has been happening with this case? No? Did you not
wonder why? Well, I’ll tell you why: the case has fallen apart.

The first indication of the Feds’ case going bad was a local report in the
Toledo (Ohio) Blade, dated April 28, 2010. “An FBI agent who led the
investigation of nine Michigan militia members charged with trying to launch
war against the federal government couldn’t recall many details of the
two-year probe yesterday during questioning by defense lawyers.

“Even the judge who must decide whether to release the nine until trial was
puzzled.

“‘I share the frustrations of the defense team . . . that she doesn’t know
anything,’ U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said after agent Leslie
Larsen confessed she hadn’t reviewed her notes recently and couldn’t
remember specific details of the case.”

See the report at:

http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20100428/NEWS02/4280343/-1/rss

Can you believe testimony such as this was given in a court of law by a
supposedly intelligent federal officer–an agent who had supposedly compiled
the evidence that was used to arrest and incarcerate these supposedly
“dangerous militia members”? If it wasn’t so serious, this would be a joke!

Remember that it was a federal informant who had infiltrated the group and
even offered to teach Hutaree members how to make improvised explosive
devices. On this point, William Grigg wrote, “While federal prosecutors have
provided ample evidence that members of the Hutaree are passionately
anti-government–what decent person ISN’T–they haven’t been able to
demonstrate that the group did anything more than engage in survivalist
training and indulge in apocalyptic rhetoric.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As a result, Judge Roberts found the government’s case sorely lacking.
“Discussions about killing local law enforcement officers–and even
discussions about killing members of the judicial branch of government–do
not translate to conspiring to overthrow, or levy war against, the United
States government,” she wrote, ordering that the Hutaree suspects be
released on bail.

About which, Grigg wrote, “Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests
entirely on what was SAID by the suspects, rather than anything specific
that was DONE by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it [the case].”
(Emphasis in the original.)

See Grigg’s column at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/57041.html

But then again, punishing people because of their speech or political
associations seems to be exactly where America is heading.

Remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is famous for supplying
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fusion Centers and State law
enforcement agencies with warnings against people due to their political
beliefs (pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-United Nations, anti-New World
Order, or anti-illegal immigration, for example), their associations
(Libertarian or Constitution parties, for example), or even who they voted
for (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin, to be precise). Previous reports
even identified people as “dangerous” because of the books they were
reading. (Tell me, again: this is the United States and not Nazi Germany,
right?)

Now consider the statements of US Congressman Andre Carson (D-Indiana), who
likens Tea Party protesters to “a terrorist threat.”

Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket recorded Rep. Carson as he explained
it all:

Kerry Picket (Washington Times): “Do you think the people outside [Tea Party
protesters] are generally dangerous or no?”

Rep. Carson: “Oh, absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I’m from
intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal
security  . . . I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes
from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) It’s the kind of thing we keep a
threat assessment on record [for].”

Larry O’Connor at BigGovernment.com then wrote, “And we can now see this two
pronged message continuing in the narrative from Democratic politicians and
the media: The Tea Party protests are really about white rage and they are
sowing the seeds for domestic terrorism. This was the message delivered by
Rep. Carson that afternoon and that is the message the media has run with.

“Only problem is, we can’t find any proof to back up Rep. Carson’s story.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/teaparty-terrorism

The truth is, if the federal government and its prostitutes at the SPLC have
their way, ANYONE COULD BE IMPRISONED FOR ANYTHING! Don’t believe physicians
should destroy human life in the womb? You’re a terrorist. Don’t like the
United Nations? You’re a terrorist. Believe immigrants should come through
the front door when migrating to America? You’re a terrorist. Voted for Ron
Paul? You’re a terrorist. Believe in the return of Jesus Christ? You’re a
terrorist. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Again, maybe this helps explain why all those (non-existent) FEMA camps are
being built!

In my initial column on the Hutaree raid, I wrote, “Did members of the
Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement
personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I
had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out–if
indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to
come out.”

See my column at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1177

Well, the facts are beginning to come out: The FBI agent who brought the
charges against these self-professed militia members made a complete fool of
herself under oath in a court of law. She presented zero evidence to
indicate that the Hutaree posed an imminent threat to anybody. Now that the
judge has released the Hutaree members from jail and rebuked the agent for
presenting such inept testimony, we’ll see if the Feds decide to pursue the
case any further. Again, as Will Grigg said, “Since the federal case against
the Hutaree rests entirely on what was SAID by the suspects, rather than
anything specific that was DONE by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left
of it [the case].”

However, the bigger question is, How far will Big-Government toadies try to
take this Nazi-like philosophy: that anyone who believes in limited
government and freedom, and who rejects their sanctimonious attitude and
bullying is a “dangerous terrorist”? And even greater is the question, How
long will the American people put up with it?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and
pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America
was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution
Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3
children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6

July 31st, 2010 | Category: 2nd Amendment, America, Constitution, Courts, Independence, Survival | Leave a comment