To be free

Freedom from Alaska!

Category: Chuck Baldwin Page 5 of 7

Chuck Baldwin: Push For Globalism Continues

By

On September 14, 2009

In Barack Obama, Chuck Baldwin, George Bush Family, Globalism—One-World Gov't

From: News with Views

When George W. Bush was President, he greatly advanced the prospect of integrating the United States with a North American Union (NAU). With no thanks to most Christian conservatives or the mainstream news media, hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans rallied against this proposal and–at least temporarily–seriously stymied Bush’s draconian dream. But if you thought President Barack Obama would be content to let the NAU die a natural death, think again.

[…]

And just as George W. Bush was willing to betray conservatives and Christians in order to achieve global unification, so, too, Barack Obama is willing to betray union workers and America’s tradesmen in order to accomplish the same agenda.

When will the American people wake up and realize that for the last twenty years, both major political parties (at the national level) have been co-opted by globalists and internationalists who have no respect or appreciation for U.S. sovereignty, and who desire to create world government? When will they look past party labels and start seeing these globalists for what they really are: traitors to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and upon which America was established?

Entire Article Here

Chuck Baldwin: Red Flag To Fly Over White House. “Why is the mainstream press not all over this story?”

By

On September 9, 2009

In China, Chuck Baldwin

From: News with Views

Lest anyone doubt the communist leanings of President Barack Obama, look no further than to his decision to hoist the Red Chinese flag (for the first time in history) over the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, September 20.

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] . . .

“More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.

“Zhao said the performances will demonstrate the friendship, magnanimous spirit and kindness of modern Chinese people.”

Trying to find words to describe the extreme offensiveness of flying the Communist Chinese flag over the White House challenges my vocabulary. Words such as UNBELIEVABLE, UNREAL, HORRIFIC, OBSCENE, even TRAITOROUS quickly come to mind. Maybe Obama really is the Manchurian Candidate.

Remember, the communist leaders of Mao’s China are not called the “Butchers of Beijing” for nothing. Since seizing power in 1949, it is estimated that the communist government in China has murdered more than 50 million people (some reports say the number is over 70 million). …

Why is the mainstream press not all over this story? Where is the outrage by veterans’ organizations (especially Korean War veterans)? Where is the national VFW? Where is the American Legion? Where is John Murtha? Where is John Kerry? Where is John McCain?

Perhaps one blogger summed it up the best. He said, “It can now be official–leave the [Chinese] flag there.” His point is well taken.

Entire Article Here

Pastor Chuck Baldwin: More On Internment Camps

By

On August 28, 2009

In Chuck Baldwin, Police State

Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.

America’s founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government.

From: News with Views

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column here.

I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of “Internment/Resettlement Specialist” that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?

Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for “Internment/Resettlement Specialist” online. See it here.

Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth.

Entire Article Here

Chuck Baldwin: Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

By

On August 12, 2009

In America's Getting Jacked!, Chuck Baldwin, Police State, The End of America?

From: News with Views

The Internet is abuzz with news about the construction of internment camps all across America. Of course, “mainstream” media outlets refuse to touch the subject; or if they do, they pooh-pooh the story; they do what Glenn Beck recently did: try to debunk the story as fallacious and impugn people who speak of it as “conspiracy nuts.” The fact that the Becks, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys of the media circus refuse to deal with the construction of large numbers of internment camps does not make them disappear, however.

For starters, all anyone need do to begin a serious investigation of the subject of internment camps is Google the phrase “FEMA Camps.” There is more than enough evidence in that search engine alone to keep one busy with some in-depth private investigation of the subject for quite a while.

Another URL to check out is this one from the June 2009 Idaho Observer.

Entire Article Here

Pastor Chuck Balwin’s Son: State Sovereignty

By

On July 25, 2009

In Chuck Baldwin

From New with Views

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.]

Let’s be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue of “Who Is Sovereign in the United States.” For our Founders, they fought, bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution) and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves; and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today in America, the question once again comes down to “Who is Sovereign in the United States?”

Today, there are 3 basic options for “Who is Sovereign in the United States”: (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe that the answer to this critical question is the Federal government–especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws are the “supreme law of the land” and that no state law or action to the contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as their “irrefutable” proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with “we the people.” However, the question must be more narrowly defined.

That is, does the sovereign power of we the people rest with all the people in the nation as one body, or does the power rest with the people THROUGH the respective States? The answer to this question cannot be overstated, because if the sovereign power rests with we the people collectively as one body, then the States have absolutely no power and at the ratification of the US Constitution, the States lost all powers originally granted to them by their respective sovereigns (the people of that State). To the contrary, if Sovereignty rests within or through their respective States, then the States conversely have more power than what is being admitted today by the “Centralists” of our day.

Through an honest study of the history and the context of the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and subsequent Ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the rulings of subsequent US Supreme Court Rulings and the writings of political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and 1800s, the conclusion is undeniable and clear: We the People are the Sovereigns of the States respectively and of the States United through our respective States.

Thus, the issue is not who is Sovereign, because we know that We the People are sovereign in the US and that the Sovereigns of each State have never ceded to the Federal government any power not expressly granted to it by the Compact (the US Constitution). But rather, the issue is one of JURISDICTION: in other words, who has the power to act on behalf of and in compliance with the Sovereign? The issue of jurisdiction is so important because it acknowledges that since the Sovereign has “paramount authority” in government, any powers that are granted from the Sovereign to government are to remain within that grant of authority. Put another way, the States can no more grant authority to the Federal government against the will of the Sovereign–the people–than the Executive branch of the Federal government can give to the Judiciary branch the powers that we the people granted to it alone. To deny that such a grant exists or conversely to ignore the limitations placed on the governments by the Sovereign is to suggest that tyranny is a lawful act and that it must be complied with. America’s founders would have considered such a political theory to be treasonous. Do we the people think so seriously of the matter? According to recent events, the answer to this question will likely be answered sooner than later.

As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective states.

Entire Article Here

Pastor Chuck Baldwin: Good-For-Nothing ‘Christians’

By

On July 10, 2009

In Chuck Baldwin, False Christians Trashing America, The Soul of America

If one is looking for someone to blame America’s demise on, don’t look to the prostitutes, drug dealers, or crooked politicians: look no further than the doorsteps of America’s churches.

From: News With Views

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” (Matt. 5:13 KJV)

Jesus said that salt without savor is “good for nothing.” Savor is the ingredient, the character that gives salt its quality–and its value. When salt is as it should be, it is a most precious commodity. Not only is it used as a seasoning; it is, more importantly, a preservative. As most everyone knows, salt was the primary source of food preservation before the days of refrigeration. Salt has been deemed to be so valuable at times that wars have actually been waged over it. During times of unusual deprivation, salt can be even more valuable than precious metals. But when salt loses its saltiness, it is absolutely worthless; it is “good for nothing.”

Jesus plainly proclaimed that He viewed His disciples as being the salt of society. In other words, when believers have the character they should have, they provide the preservation of the land. They hold back and retard the putrefying properties of spoilage and decay. But when Christians lose their character, when they lose the internal resistance to decay, they become “good for nothing” and the result is, the land is “trodden under foot of men.”

It grieves me to say that, for the most part, the modern Christian, the modern pastor, and the modern church have lost their savor. Taken as a whole, we have lost our inner character: the ability to resist decay and preserve the land has long departed, and America is fast being “trodden under foot of men.”

Our churches are no longer places of respite from the world: they are mirrors of it: the same dress; the same attitudes; the same carnality; the same spirit; the same stubbornness; the same pride. Churches are no longer bastions of truth: they are glorified social clubs or mere corporations, where Christianity is never allowed to interfere with business. Instead of being watchmen on the wall, our pastors are CEOs or, even worse, politicians. Popularity and personal ambition far outweigh commitment to truth and an independent mind. And as for Christian homes, forget it. The modern American home is straight out of Isaiah chapter three: “babes shall rule over them.” In the average “Christian” home, children rule the mothers, and mothers, in turn, rule the fathers. Discipline and instruction are out; leniency and ignorance are in.

We have a pandemic all right, but it’s not the swine flu: it is a pandemic of spineless Christianity. Parents who cannot stand up to their own children; pastors who cannot stand up to their own congregations; religious leaders who cannot stand up to politicians; and churches that cannot stand up to unconstitutional government.

Our so-called “conservative Christian” special interest groups are far more concerned about not losing financial contributions than they are about confronting the real evils of society. And as far as the Religious Right is concerned, it lost its soul somewhere early on in the first administration of George W. Bush.

Entire Article Here

Chuck Baldwin: A Culture of Surveillance — Obama Taking Up Where Bush Left Off

By

On May 2, 2009

In America's Getting Jacked!, Barack Obama, Chuck Baldwin, George Bush Family, Media Bias Exposed

From: News with Views

It is truly amazing how much news the American news media chooses to ignore. If one wants to discover what is actually going on in the world, he or she often has to go to the foreign press. This has again been the case with a story that every American should be extremely interested in, but which has been totally ignored by the American news media. I found this story in Russia Today.

According to RussiaToday.com, “The personal computer may soon be not-so-private….

According to Ecommerce Journal, President Obama and his Big Brother fellow travelers in Congress are seeking power to “cut the whole world off the Internet.” The report says, “Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe proposed the Cybersecurity Act that would create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. Its powers are detailed in the The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

“If the President so chooses, he can call a ‘cybersecurity emergency’ and shut down or limit any ‘net traffic or a ‘critical’ network ‘in the name of national security,’ though the bill fails to provide concrete definitions on what is ‘critical’ or what constitutes an ’emergency.'”

The report goes on to say, “This new legislation seeks to give even more power to the government to regulate the Internet and, in future, the possibility to regulate content and usage. ….

So, once again, the passing of a Republican Presidential administration and the advent of a Democratic Presidential administration have resulted in zero change in the overall direction of the ship of state. In the name of “national security,” the federal government of this country continues to deepen its commitment to what can only be described as a police-state mentality. And, once again, the national news media in America chooses to ignore the story, and by so doing, shows willful compliance with this disturbing phenomenon.

I wonder how many Obama supporters are paying attention?

During the Bush years, my “conservative” brethren (especially the ones calling themselves Christians) repeatedly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the myriad foibles and falsehoods, and frequent fraudulence of President Bush because he was a Republican. Now we will see how many Obama supporters will look the other way in order to protect President Obama because he is a Democrat. I suspect most of them will show themselves of no better character than the Bush supporters.

Consider: Obama promised to end the war in Iraq. But what has he done since being elected? He merely moved the major combat theater to Afghanistan. He is even in the process of escalating the war in Afghanistan to possibly include Pakistan. So, where are the “peacenik” liberals who supported Obama? Why do they not loudly proclaim their opposition, as they did when Bush was in office?

Furthermore, Obama criticized Bush’s undisciplined deficit spending, but what has he done since becoming President? He has deeply expanded Bush’s failed financial policy of excessive deficit spending. Again, where are all the loud voices of protest?

George Bush wanted amnesty for illegal aliens. Barack Obama wants amnesty for illegal aliens. George Bush supported the assault weapons ban. Barack Obama supports the assault weapons ban. George Bush wanted to limit the legal rights of certain people charged with crimes. Well, friends, Barack Obama also wants to limit the rights of people charged with crimes.

Just last week, an Associated Press report stated, “The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

“The administration’s action–and several others–have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat’s call for change during the 2008 campaign.”

So, where are Obama’s supporters who thought they were voting for change? Will they do nothing, as did Bush’s supporters, and accept this abridgment of personal liberty, simply because “their man” is in the White House? Probably.

In addition, George Bush created a Big-Government monster known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Can there be any doubt that DHS is in the process of manufacturing a ubiquitous surveillance society that eavesdrops, snoops, and monitors virtually our entire lives? And what does Barack Obama do immediately after assuming office? He multiplies and expands the surveillance society to even greater degrees. So again I ask, where are all the Bush critics to denounce Barack Obama’s draconian anti-privacy, anti-freedom policies?

The Internet is the last best source of free and independent information left. Think where the liberty movement would be without the Internet. But even as we speak, President Obama and his allies in Congress are attempting to obtain the authority to censor information on–and curtail access to–the Internet. Plus, in the name of “cybersecurity,” they are plotting to obtain the authority to monitor and seize anyone’s personal computer at will.

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention — “D.C. is a Lost Cause”

By

On March 19, 2009

In Chuck Baldwin, Freedom

From: News with Views

It seems that most everyone focuses his or her attention on what is happening in Washington, D.C. People don’t seem to get excited about politics until a national election rolls around or unless the President makes some startling announcement. Even well-meaning Christian leaders seem to spend the vast majority of their time dealing with policies that emanate from Washington, D.C. Already, I’m hearing leaders of the so-called Religious Right talk gushingly about who the next Presidential nominee of the Republican Party will be. Who cares? Do you mean to tell me that with all we have to deal with right now, we can’t find anything else to talk about? How shallow–and utterly ineffective–can we be?

In the first place, Washington, D.C., is a lost cause. It really is. We have about as much chance of flying to the moon in a glider as we do of seeing any significant change in Washington, D.C. Neither the Republican nor Democrat parties at the national level offer any hope. The federal government is hell-bent on turning the United States into a socialistic global village, and the two major parties are in it up to their necks. …

If there is any hope for lovers of freedom in this country, it will be found in individual States that are willing to shake off the filthy dust that has floated down from that putrid landfill on the banks of the Potomac, and stand up for freedom and independence the way Americans used to. And if the State we live in won’t do it, we might want to consider moving to one that will, because if we lose our liberties, it will be our own individual State that will have run up the white flag.

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: Missouri State Police Think You And I Are Terrorists

By

On March 17, 2009

In America's Getting Jacked!, Chuck Baldwin, Police State, Real History

“Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won’t know whether it’s because he was speeding or because of his political views.”

Related: David Icke: PLEASE DON’T RIOT … IT’S JUST WHAT ‘THEY’ WANT

From: News with Views

Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as “‘militia’ influenced terrorists.” The report, he said, “instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.”

Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called “militia movement” and “conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.”

This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.

Read More

Chuck Baldwin: The Monster Eating Our Country Alive

By

On February 27, 2009

In $Money$ ToBeFree, Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul, Secret Societies

From: News with Views, President And Congress Grovel Before The Fed

… America is being run by a private banking cartel, the majority of whom are not even citizens of these United States.

Ever since the Fed was created in 1913, America has been subjected to recession after recession, not to mention one Great Depression. Some are even predicting that the United States is now actually entering a second Great Depression. Please understand this: the Federal Reserve has manipulated every bit of this financial crisis for the express purpose of enriching the international bankers on the backs (and bankruptcies) of the American taxpayers. And what does our illustrious Congress do? They continue to give billions and even trillions of taxpayer dollars to the very same group of gangsters who created and perpetuate this financial fraud. And, as with Congress, Presidents from both major parties likewise promote and defend this chicanery.

Yet, the U.S. Constitution, in Article. I. Section. 8. Paragraph. 5., clearly gives Congress the authority “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”

This constitutional requirement makes two obvious demands: 1) only the elected Congress, not some private foreign (or even domestic) banking interest, has the power to make monetary policy, 2) U.S. currency must be hard currency, i.e. gold and silver. Paper money–known as the Federal Reserve Notes–is not even legal tender under the U.S. Constitution.

In truth, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is itself unconstitutional. In simple terms, the Act did not amend or expunge Article. I. Section. 8. Paragraph. 5. of the Constitution; it merely ignored it. (And Congresses and Presidents have been ignoring the Constitution ever since.)

In fact, Article. I. Section. 10. Paragraph 1. of the U.S. Constitution specifically states, “No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Can anyone not see that the Federal Reserve is an illegitimate system? I will even go so far as to say that the Federal Reserve should be regarded as a corrupt, criminal system! If I were President, not only would I do everything in my power to oppose any and all financial bailouts to these international banksters, I would instruct the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges of fraud, corruption, manipulation, and outright thievery against the Fed. Instead of padding their fat assets in a million-dollar penthouse, they should be serving most of the rest of their lives in the Big House.

Even the man who created the Federal Reserve, President Woodrow Wilson, later admitted the gravity of his sin. Years after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, Wilson was quoted by Senator Robert Owen, Former Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency (who was, himself, the chief sponsor of the Federal Reserve Act in the Senate, but who later vehemently repudiated it), as saying, “A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world–no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”

Obviously, Wilson’s (and Owen’s) recantation was too little, too late. He created the monster that is eating our country alive–even up to this very moment.

In the meantime, Congressman Ron Paul has again introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to terminate the Federal Reserve. It is H.R. 833: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks. The Bill was introduced on February 3 and, to date, has no cosponsors. That’s right. No cosponsors.

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore? — Where do our rights come from, and what is the government’s role? Why are born-again Christians among the first to gladly relinquish their freedom?

By

On February 5, 2009

In Chuck Baldwin, Freedom

From: News with Views

I am often guilty of using the term “freedom-loving Americans.” But I think the question now needs to be asked, Do Americans really cherish freedom anymore? I believe an argument could be made that not many do. In fact, I doubt that most Americans today remotely understand what freedom–as envisioned by our Founding Fathers–even is.

Freedom is more than not being in prison (although America incarcerates more people than any nation on earth). Freedom is more than driving a car, or taking a vacation, or being able to choose your place of residence, or attending a sporting event. People in totalitarian regimes have, for the most part, been able to do the equivalent of all that.

The freedoms upon which America was founded are outlined in our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The first principle of freedom is that freedom is a gift of Almighty God. As God is the Giver of life, He is also the Grantor of liberty. This was plainly stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . .”

Ask the average American today, Where do our rights come from? Most will look at you funny and then blurt out, “From government.” And, of course, this is evidently the same opinion held by most of today’s politicians. To them, freedom is whatever civil government says it is. Yes, I am saying it: most politicians have a God-complex. And, unfortunately, it seems that most Americans today are willing to go along with this calamitous charade.

Jefferson and the rest of America’s founders, however, rightly understood that the only legitimate purpose of government was “to secure these rights.” The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator. …

And the people who should be more “jealous over” their liberties than anyone–born-again Christians–are among the first to gladly relinquish their freedom. …

And one would think that our veterans–of all people–would be among the first to jealously guard freedom. How, then, can former and retired military personnel sit back and allow the government they once proudly served to lie to them, renege on promises, withhold medical care, abandon their friends and family members still missing in action, and not utter a word of protest? How can they allow their comrades-in-arms to sleep on the streets outside VA clinics? While they were willing to travel halfway around the world–and risk life and limb–to defend America against foreign enemies, many will sit back right here at home and complacently watch while these glorified miscreants–known as politicians–systematically strip this nation of the very freedoms and liberties they swore to defend. Did they not take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC?

Read Entire Article

Pastor Chuck Baldwin: Best And Worst Of 2008 — The Religious Right has become nothing more than a gaggle of glorified hacks for the Republican Party

By

On January 6, 2009

In Chuck Baldwin, False Christians Trashing America, George Bush Family, Pat Robertson

From: News with Views

Internet publishers such as Paul Walter make my “best” list, too. Paul publishes News With Views. He and people such as Jim Rudd at Covenant News have carried my columns for years. These are men who also know what’s going on and are not afraid to print the truth. Thanks, guys. …

In addition to the mainstream media, and worthless talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity, I must include the majority of so-called leaders within the Religious Right as making my “worst” list for 2008. I include James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tony Perkins on this list.

For all intents and purposes, the Religious Right has become nothing more than a gaggle of glorified hacks for the Republican Party. They have sacrificed virtually every principle worth defending. For the sake of sitting at the king’s table, or not losing financial support from brain-dead contributors, these men have sold the cause of freedom and constitutional government down the river. Their mindless support for John McCain was inexcusable and embarrassing! In so doing, they have lost all credibility.

Also making my “worst” list in 2008 are the many pastors and church members around the country who continued to support one of the worst Presidents in American history: George W. Bush. This man has taken America to the precipice of financial ruin; he has created the foundation for a police state; he has trampled the Constitution and Bill of Rights like no President since Abraham Lincoln; he has used our bravest and best for his sinister plans of interventionist adventurism; he has set the wheels of global government and national socialism in motion, as has no other President (I’m sure Barack Obama will do more than his share to augment socialism in the United States, but remember, it is George W. Bush that has laid the foundation for the acceptance of national socialism). I’m not sure that America will ever truly recover from his Presidency. Yet, a majority of conservative pastors and church members continue to idolize George Bush. What an embarrassment!

Both the Democrat and Republican Parties make my “worst” list for 2008. In one year, both major parties nominated two men, neither of whom was constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. Now, that’s quite a feat!

The Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, and other global elitists also make my “worst” list for 2008. When will the people of America awaken to the reality that our worst enemies are not “liberals” and “leftists,” as much as they are the global elitists who control the Federal Reserve and other internationalist entities that are committed to dismantling America’s independence and sovereignty?

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: Selective Constitutionalism

By

On December 9, 2008

In Barack Obama, Chuck Baldwin, John McCain

From: News with Views

Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.

Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.

Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.

Read Entire Article

Third Party results — Scroll over the states.

By

On November 6, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

It looks like most of the religious right voters voted for whom they thought was the lesser of two evils, again.

Click Here

Joel Skousen: My Election Advice

By

On October 31, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin, Joel Skousen

World Affairs Brief, October 31, 2008. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief

MY ELECTION ADVICE

It is time for Americans to stop voting for the “lesser of two evils,” and make a firm commitment always to vote only for principled candidates who will defend our liberty without compromise. If you are a conservative and think that we will suffer more damage under Obama than McCain, think again. Both parties are going to foist a national health insurance plan on the nation. Both will continue intervening around the world. Neither will fight against the evils of fiat money and insider trading and speculation that has brought our nation to economic destruction. Both will favor more bailouts of all varieties that will create a complete dependency upon government controls. At least with a Democrat in office the conservatives will fight against them. With a Republican in office, unthinking conservatives accept what they are told and believe that it is somehow a virtue.

I, along with Ron Paul, am endorsing Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. Baldwin is principled, articulate, and capable of rising to be the next great leader of the conservative movement in America. He’s a great religious leader but will not compromise with the PTB in order to gain political favors for Christianity as do the other mainline evangelical leaders. He is also very sensitive to the fact that there are others in this nation with different religious beliefs. Baldwin allows for religious diversity and does not believe in limiting our constitutional freedoms on one religion only. Voting for a third party is not a waste of your vote. It sends a strong message to the establishment that we are not going to be fooled or persuaded any longer into voting for evil in the illusory fear of “wasting our vote.”

It is hard to stop opportunists from running for office when courts allow them to legislate benefits for others. That’s why term limits don’t work for us. It’s far easier for socialists to replaced their kind of representative than for us to find principled constitutionalists to run in a system that doesn’t have limits on lawmaking power.

Ultimately, our only long-term solution is to rebuild a network of influential conservatives and libertarians who can recognize the difference between good and bad laws (new founding fathers, if you will) so that we can build a movement to once again bind Congress and state legislatures down with the chains of a tighter set of laws–with proper limits on lawmaking powers and the use of majority rule. My Law and Government section on my personal website http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/philosophy.html is a first start in this area.

I’ve tried to take the principles of the constitution and restructure them in tight legal language so our fundamental rights cannot be legislated or interpreted away. Another effort focusing on eliminating bad law directly has been started by subscriber David Shields. I encourage you to go to his website www.fixbadlaws.com and click on the “Featured Article” link; read it and then sign on to help disseminate this to others. It’s a good beginning. If there are any other legal minds out there willing to help me begin the process of preparing a new legal structure for the Ideal State, let me know by return email.

VIDEO: Both Third Party Debates

By

On October 31, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-485073552839898008]

Third Party Debate from the City Club of Cleveland

Ralph Nader, Independent Party, fmr. Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), Libertarian Party, and Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, met in a debate hosted by the City Club of Cleveland. 1 hr. 3 min.

C-Span is also hosting this video in Real format, but only from their home page, currently.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmZpSCMBy4k]

Third Party Presidential Debate with candidates Ralph Nader and The Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin

Related: Watch Online: Chuck Baldwin on C-Span—3rd Party Debate with Nader; Today’s 1/2-Hour Call-in

10/29/08 3rd Party Debate with Chuck Baldwin…

By

On October 29, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin, Media Bias Exposed

From: An email from the Constitution Party

3rd Party Debate To Focus On Economy

“No Bailouts”
Presidential Candidate To Tell Voters The Rest Of The Story

Cleveland, OH (October 29, 2008)  Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin08.com) will address economic issues in a debate  scheduled for Thursday, October 30th at 4:30 PM at the City Club of Cleveland, 850- Euclid Ave, Cleveland.

The forum, organized by the City Club will effectively break the media blackout on viable third party candidates running in the presidential race. Third party candidates in the debate include Independent Ralph Nader, the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney and the Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr.

“As long as Americans are denied the opportunity to hear from all the candidates we cannot pretend we have unbiased election coverage or fair elections,” said Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Baldwin, standard-bearer for the fast-growing Constitution Party has received the endorsement of former GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547).

Last month Paul urged all Americans to end the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties and vote for a third party candidate in November (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7fcbst3VE ).

Baldwin, a Pensacola, Florida pastor and former Moral Majority state chair, is a political columnist, author and radio talk show host and was the 2004 Constitution Party vice presidential candidate.

Baldwin has distinguished himself as the only candidate running who is for secure borders, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for overturning Roe v Wade and abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Baldwin has received an A rating from Gun Owners of America (www.gunowners.org) and Numbers USA, (www.numbersusa.org) the pro-secure borders, anti- illegal immigration group in contrast to McCain and Obama’s F- ratings.

The City Club of Cleveland debate, moderated by Dan Moulthrop of Cleveland’s PBS radio and television stations, will be streamed live by ideastream (http://www.wviz.org/). The debate’s main focus will be on the economy. Baldwin has spoken out against the federal government’s recent so-called “bailouts” in contrast to Senators Obama and McCain who support what Baldwin calls “a disastrous scheme against the American taxpayer.”

C-Span will tape Thursday’s debate for broadcast later that night.

Watch Online: Chuck Baldwin on C-Span—3rd Party Debate with Nader; Today’s 1/2-Hour Call-in

By

On October 27, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

Both C-Span programs are excellent! I would have liked to hear the moderator less in the debate, but what he says is good.

Third Party Presidential Candidate Debate
(just Chuck & Ralph)

Constitution Party Call-in
(32-minutes with Chuck)

Vote clean this time. Stand up for righteousness!

Chuck Baldwin is Ron Paul endorsed and is awesome! I have voted for the Constitution party candidate for President the last two times, and will again, now that the people foolishly chose John McCain over Ron Paul in the primaries.

The globalist picked, promoted, funded and controlled McCain and Obama will both continue the destruction of this once great nation to its utter demise.

Related

At ToBeFree:

Both Third Party Debates

All 45 of my Chuck Baldwin posts (in reverse-chronological order)

All of my Sarah Palin posts (in reverse-chronological order)

All of my John McCain posts (in reverse-chronological order)

Ron Paul: “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin” & “the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions”

Ron Paul’s Biggest Eye-Opener: ‘Christian’ Evangelicals Pushing Preemptive War in the Name of Spreading Christian ‘Love’

At OneCanHappen:

President Bush — “Bad Fruits versus Good Fruits” List

Pastor Baldwin: The Religious Right is AWOL From the Real War

Pastor Baldwin: Today’s ‘Christians’—No Hope In God’s Way

Voting for the ‘Lesser of Evils,’ Thinking We’re Going to Heaven

It’s Official: LIVE 3rd Party Debate Tonight on C-Span 2 (9pm Eastern)

By

On October 23, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

From: C-Span’s Home Page

LIVE 3rd Party Debate Tonight

Today

Tonight, Ralph Nader (I) & Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) meet in a 3rd Party debate, hosted by Free and Equal. This is Mr. Nader’s fourth presidential campaign. Mr. Baldwin is a radio talk show host and Baptist Minister.

It’s listed on today’s C-Span schedule to be aired at 9pm (Eastern) for 1.5 hours — C-Span 2.

From: http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=567806903

Debate
Third Party Presidential Candidate Debate
Free and Equal Elections
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 281952 – 10/23/2008 – 1:30 – No Sale

View in Video Library

Nader, Ralph Presidential Candidate, I, Independent
Hedges, Chris Senior Fellow, Nation Institute
Baldwin, Chuck Presidential Candidate, Constitution Party

Third party presidential candidates Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin had a debate. At the time of the debate, they were the only candidates whose appearance was confirmed.

Chris Hedges moderated the debate held in the Colonial Room at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel.

This debate is important because real solutions will actually be discussed here by candidates who aren’t bought and paid for, who could actually turn the destruction of America around; though, they’re completely ignored by even most pastors in this nation. So now it’s basically too late, having dissed Ron Paul as well, which is even more incredible, because Ron Paul really had a chance….

Ron-Paul-endorsed Chuck Baldwin has my vote. I will not vote for the destruction of this once great country, which McCain and Obama will almost certainly continue on the fast track.

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES’ DEBATE ON OCTOBER 23 IN WASHINGTON, DC

By

On October 22, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

From: Third Party Watch

Baldwin agrees to third-party debate

The following is a media release from the Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) presidential campaign:

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES’ DEBATE ON OCTOBER 23 IN WASHINGTON, DC

Contact: Mary Starrett
Communications Director
Chuck Baldwin for President
Phone: (602) 315-6193
E-Mail: Mary@Baldwin2008.com

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC- Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) choice for President is among those invited to a debate for all presidential candidates on Thursday, October 23, in Washington, D.C.

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin ( www.Baldwin08.com) will join other third party candidates at the 90-minute forum, which is being sponsored by The Free and Equal Elections Coalition ( www.freeandequal.org).

The Third Party Presidential Candidates Debate will be held at 9 p.m. (EST) at the Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW, in Washington, D.C.

A total of six presidential candidates who are on enough state ballots to be eligible to win the election have been invited to participate.

According to Ballot Access News ( www.ballot-access.org), the Constitution Party is the largest and fastest-growing third party based on voter registrations. The recent endorsement of CP candidate Chuck Baldwin by former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has directed many of Paul’s supporters to Baldwin. See Ron Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=547 .

The 90-minute debate will focus on the issues that distinguish Chuck Baldwin from the major and minor party presidential candidates in the race: opposition to the so-called ‘bail-outs’, opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for secure borders, the overturning of Roe v Wade, and a return to limited, Constitutional government.

In addition to Baldwin, the other invited candidates are Republican Party nominee John McCain, Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama, Independent Ralph Nader, the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney, and the Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr.

Source

Sunday on C-Span [Maybe??]: 3rd-Party Candidates Debate — Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader (8pm Eastern)

By

On October 19, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

[UPDATE]

C-span doesn’t have this listed in their schedule. And none of the sites of the three candidates have it listed either. This site says it’s happening but may not air live, and that Amy Goodman will moderate.

But C-span2 apparently will air Jesse Ventura speaking about his book: “Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me” at 6pm (eastern).

From: Common Dreams

WASHINGTON – Third-party presidential candidates finally will have their own debate: at 8 p.m. Sunday at Columbia University in New York.

The debate, which will be announced Wednesday, will include at least three of the four third-party candidates – independent Ralph Nader, the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney and the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin. Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict, but debate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader. (Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain are also invited.)

Nader and Barr are on the ballot in 45 states, while the Green Party is on 31 state ballots and the Constitution Party is on the ballot in 37 states. Nader and McKinney also are on the District of Columbia ballot.

Organizers say the debate is an important exercise in democracy, especially because the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (the last of which is Wednesday night) exclude candidates scoring below 15 percent in national polls. Nader, the best known of the candidates, has an average of 2.5 percent in recent national polls, according to realclearpolitics.com, while Barr averages 1.5 percent.

Nader … “two-thirds of the people don’t know we’re running.”

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: “A Wasted Vote”

By

On October 10, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

From: News with Views

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, “He cannot win.” Or, “I don’t want to waste my vote.” It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don’t think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the “evil of two lessers.”

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for “change” when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for “peacekeeping” purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar “free trade” deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote? …

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life [even for full grown people. Imagine that – editor]. …

“Who is this person?” you ask. Go here to find out.

As John Quincy Adams said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Read Entire Article

Related: Jack McLamb: Voting for the ‘Lesser of Evils’

Why Weren’t There 6 Podiums in Last Night’s Debate?

By

On October 3, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul

Note: In this report, Democracy Now! plays clips from all of the third party candidates that are on enough ballots to win except for the candidate Ron Paul endorsed: Chuck Baldwin.

So Democracy Now! does their own exclusions — as they completely excluded Ron Paul while he was running.

_________________

From: Democracy Now! — No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates

When you exclude third parties from the election process, third parties that the vast majority of Americans would like to see in the presidential debates, you’re not only denying those people the right to choose who they want to run for president and who they want to vote for, but you’re denying the very fundamental and critical issues that, in a generative democracy, we need to have aired in from of tens of millions of voters.

Read/Watch/Listen to the Interview

Chuck Baldwin: U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?

By

On September 30, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin, George Bush Family

From: News with Views

When the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, however, the restrictions of Posse Comitatus were restored. But when President Bush signed the Act into law, he attached a signing statement (Executive Order) indicating that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal. Translated: President Bush wiped out Posse Comitatus by Executive Order.

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: No Amnesty For Wall Street

By

On September 25, 2008

In $Money$ ToBeFree, Chuck Baldwin

From: News with Views

At the time of this writing, the U.S. House and Senate are poised to pass a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street. At the behest of President George W. Bush, the U.S. taxpayers are going to be on the hook for what can only be referred to as the biggest fraud in U.S. history.

Virtually our entire financial system is based on an illusion. We spend more than we earn, we consume more than we produce, we borrow more than we save, and we cling to the fantasy that this can go on forever. The glue that holds this crumbling scheme together is a fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note, which was created out of thin air by an international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve.

According to Congressman Ron Paul, in the last three years, the Federal Reserve has created over $4 trillion in new money. The result of all this “money-out-of-thin-air” fraud is never-ending inflation. And the more prices rise, the more the dollar collapses. Folks, this is not sustainable.

Already, Bear Stearns was awarded a $29 billion bailout, followed quickly by the bailout of Freddie and Fannie that will cost the taxpayers up to $200 billion. Then the Fed announced the bailout of AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Mind you, AIG is an enormous global entity with assets totaling more than $1.1 trillion. Moreover, the Feds agreed to pump $180 billion into global money markets. And the Treasury Department promised $50 billion to insure the holdings of money market mutual funds for a year. Now, taxpayers are being asked to provide $700 billion to Wall Street. (I hope readers are aware that, not only will American banks be bailed out, but foreign banks will also be bailed out. Then again, at least half of the Federal Reserve is comprised of foreign banks, anyway.) In other words, the Federal Reserve is preparing to spend upwards of $1 trillion or more. Remember again, this is fiat money, meaning it is money printed out of thin air.

All of this began when the U.S. Congress abrogated its responsibility to maintain sound money principles on behalf of the American people (as required by the Constitution) and created the Federal Reserve. This took place in 1913. The President was Woodrow Wilson. (I strongly encourage readers to buy G. Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island.) Since then, the U.S. economy has suffered through one Great Depression and several recessions–all of which have been orchestrated by this international banking cartel. Now, we are facing total economic collapse.

But don’t worry: the international bankers will lose nothing–not even their bonuses. They will maintain their mansions, yachts, private jets, and Swiss bank accounts. No matter how bad it gets on Main Street, the banksters on Wall Street will still have the best of it–President Bush and the Congress will make sure of that. This is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on.

America’s founders were rightfully skeptical of granting too much power to bankers. Thomas Jefferson said, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Jefferson also believed that “banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Read Entire Article

Ron Paul: “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin” & “the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions”

By

On September 23, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin, False Christians Trashing America, Ron Paul, War

“Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions.  They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons.  Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge.  The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.”

“I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

__________________________

From: Campaign for Liberty

A New Alliance – By Dr. Ron Paul

Friends – please read this new and important piece by Dr. Paul.

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose.  It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process.  It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo.  There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies.  The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored.  The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote. …

Read More

Chuck Baldwin 2008: Are You an American or a Globalist?

By

On September 23, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

Ron Paul Endorsed — The rEVOLution Continues!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJynIeWkf4]

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/chuckbaldwin2008

Chuck Baldwin: A Salute To Our U.S. Constitution

By

On September 21, 2008

In Chuck Baldwin

From: News with Views, September 17, 2008

On this date in 1787, the U.S. Constitution was adopted. 39 delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies (Rhode Island did not send a representative) affixed their signatures to the greatest civil document ever conceived by men. Famous patriots such as George Washington, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, George Clymer, and Abraham Baldwin were among this gallant group.

Under divine Providence, it has been allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties and protected our very way of life. Most of the problems, failings, and frustrations that plague our nation today are due to the propensity of our civil magistrates to ignore or blatantly abuse constitutional government. Accordingly, fidelity to the Constitution would likely repair most of the damage done by this neglect.

It is the responsibility of a free people to jealously guard the principles upon which their liberties are predicated.

Read Entire Article

Chuck Baldwin: Sarah Palin’s Answers—Very Troubling

By

On September 15, 2008

In Alaska, Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran, Chuck Baldwin, False Christians Trashing America, John McCain, Sarah Palin, War

From: News with Views

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview as John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate to ABC’s Charles Gibson last week. Her answers were very troubling, especially to those of us who believe in constitutional government. On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote Bush’s preemptive war doctrine.

Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is. Gibson asked: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” Palin’s response: “In what respect, Charlie?” Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.

When Gibson properly defined the Bush doctrine as being the determination of President Bush to unilaterally, preemptively launch anticipatory military attacks and invasions against foreign countries (without a Declaration of War from Congress, I might add), Palin said the President “has the obligation, the duty” to launch such attacks. No wonder John McCain likes her so much.

Palin went on to make further statements that must have made John McCain proud. When asked if she would be willing to take America to war with Russia in order to defend Georgia, she responded by saying, “Perhaps so.”

Egad! Do John McCain and Sarah Palin envision–even desire–war with Russia? John McCain is already on record as supporting sending troops to Georgia; now Sarah Palin suggests that even war with Russia is a possibility. Over what? Has Russia deployed troops along our borders? Has Russia threatened to invade the United States? Are McCain and Palin truly willing to launch a war with a nation that has thousands of ICBMs in its nuclear arsenal, when our own security has not been threatened? And just how many other countries are McCain and Palin willing to defend with American toil and blood? All of Europe? …

Many people familiar with John McCain have tried to warn the American people about the warmongering, hot-tempered senator. To quote one of McCain’s fellow POWs, Phillip Butler (who was a POW for 8 years, 2 1/2 years longer than McCain), “I can verify that John [McCain] has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger I want next to that red button.” …

Read More

Chuck Baldwin: America’s Greatest Threat

By

On September 9, 2008

In America's Getting Jacked!, China, Chuck Baldwin, George Bush Family, John McCain, War

From: News with Views

Every time violence erupts somewhere in the world, our national leaders and news media make it sound like that particular outbreak is America’s greatest threat. The conflict between Russia and Georgia is no exception. Almost as soon as news of the conflict broke, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, was suggesting that the United States (or the United Nations) should send troops to the scene. I guess two wars are not enough for McCain; he now wants to start a third. (And with all his talk about bombing Iran, make that four.) And talk all over Washington, D.C., was mostly about what kind of military response the United States should take.

Have people lost their minds? Or do people really believe that the United States is the world’s–or should we say the United Nations’–policeman? Apparently, that is what our national leaders from both major parties believe.

Let’s face it: most of America’s foreign policy over the last several decades has been more about fulfilling the U.N.’s global desires than protecting the people and property of the United States. And, yes, that includes America’s invasion of Iraq.

Do readers not remember that soon after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush appeared before the United Nations and plainly told that sinister organization that the reason he had ordered the invasion of Iraq was to “defend . . . the credibility of the United Nations”? Frankly, I did not know the United Nations had any credibility worth defending. Nevertheless, G.W. Bush was willing to sacrifice over 4,000 American lives for the express purpose of defending the U.N.’s “credibility.” Now, John McCain appears willing to send troops to Georgia.

I will not use this column to analyze the specific events leading up to Russia’s attack against Georgia, except to say that one can count on the fact that there is much more to the story than what NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are telling us.

In addition, one of the major fallacies being perpetrated by most in Washington, D.C., is the notion that America is somehow strengthened and protected by aggressive meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. Such a philosophy was considered anathema to America’s Founding Fathers. They rightly understood that such reasoning created more problems than it solved and that it made America more vulnerable, not more secure.

Regardless of what the underlying and overriding reasons for Russia’s attack might have been, I will say here and now that the Russian-Georgian conflict is not America’s greatest threat. I will also be so bold as to say that Iran or North Korea is not America’s greatest threat, either. In fact, I will categorically state that no foreign nation (although, of all foreign nations, Red China should undoubtedly be our biggest concern–and none of our national leaders seem the least bit concerned about it) is America’s greatest threat. America’s greatest threat comes from within. And I am not alone in that opinion.

Read Entire Article

Page 5 of 7

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén