Recently by Chuck Baldwin: A Look at How Democrats and Republicans Differ

If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.

According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.

“She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.

“On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

“Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

“It is a gun confiscation bill.

“The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

“It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves.”

The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

See the report.

Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, “After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

“The definition of an ‘Assault Weapon’ in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it! They’re targeting EVERYTHING – rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

“You see, the gun-grabbers are going for broke.

“Even owners of supposedly ‘grandfathered’ firearms will be treated like common criminals.

“If passed, Feinstein’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban would:

• “Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns;
• “Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one ‘military characteristic’ – which could mean just about anything that makes a gun ‘look scary.’
• “Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;
• “Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting;
• “Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

“And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So don’t be fooled.”

See the report.

As I stated in this column last week, “The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family.

“Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, “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.”

See my column.

And it is Jefferson’s observation that the “strongest reason” that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is “to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate.

Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy – whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms – especially semi-automatic rifles – in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.

Here’s how we must fight:

1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest.

We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states – which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives.

Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be pro-Second Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear arms – including semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinstein’s gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored.

Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW! If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE!

2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms.

Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obama’s tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever!

This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens’ right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers.

3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms – including our semi-automatic rifles.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue.

There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes. Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious, I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I haven’t drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, I have a marriage license, a driver’s license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear arms – including a semi-automatic rifle – I absolutely refuse to comply!

My line in the sand is drawn here!

Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.

It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country – not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedom – hang in the balance.

Chuck Baldwin [send him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here is his website.

The Best of Chuck Baldwin

It is an absolute
fact that no matter which of the two major parties in Washington,
D.C., is in power, the freedoms and liberties of the American people
continue to be eroded. However, this does NOT mean that there are
not basic differences between the two parties. The two parties differ
greatly on HOW government will take our liberties. Where they are
similar is in the fact that neither of them has any interest in
preserving liberty. Until the American people awaken to this reality,
whatever freedoms we have left in this country are doomed.

Let me ask
you a question: does it really matter whether a free man is enslaved
by a socialist state or a fascist state? Are the prisons any more
accommodating? Are the lashes from the whip any less painful? Is
the agony of losing a loved one any less grievous? Is the persecution
any less revolting? What difference does it make to a free man if
his liberties are stolen by an Adolf Hitler or by a Joseph Stalin?

Do you want
a quick reference to the difference between how the Democrats and
Republicans in Washington, D.C., are stealing our liberties? When
the Democrats control things, America gets more socialism; when
the Republicans control things, America gets more corporatism, which
is a polite word for fascism. Socialism requires government to own
everything, while fascism requires government to control everything.
And remember, too, fascists and socialists have always hated each
other. Big deal! Fascists and socialists alike hate freedomists,
which is why inside-the-beltway Repubs and Dems can’t stand
people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly. (Remember the MIAC
report identifying the three of us, and our supporters, as being
potential “dangerous militia” members?) So who cares which
of these two parties happens to be in power? Our freedoms continue
to be under siege. That’s why the battle in Washington politics
has nothing to do with preserving freedom, but everything to do
with HOW government will take freedom. Will they take it by ownership
or by control? And, unfortunately, what we have right now is the
worst of both worlds: government is using a combination of both
ownership and control to steal our liberties. Why? Because except
for a very precious few elected civil magistrates (like Congressman
Ron Paul), there is no one on Capitol Hill or the White House who
remotely understands – or fights for – the principles
of liberty.

Even worse
is that when the Donkeys and the Elephants do agree, it almost always
is in an effort to point the bayonets at the American citizenry.
What does it matter whether government owns it or controls it? What
does it matter whether it more resembles socialism of corporatism?
What it doesn’t look anything like, is FREEDOM!

Take the Democrat/Republican
debate over Obamacare. Even if Mitt Romney and the GOP prevail in
the November elections, Obamacare will be replaced with Romneycare.
And Romneycare will be 85% Obamacare, with a slight shift toward
government control and a slight shift away from government ownership.
Again, I say, BIG DEAL! What neither party is talking about is that
the federal government has no business being in health care. Period!
Just like the federal government has no business being in over 90%
of everything it is involved in today. But who do you hear saying
that in Washington, D.C., except Ron Paul?

Take the issue
of the burgeoning surveillance society. What does it matter which
major party is in power in Washington, D.C.? The TSA gets more and
more obnoxiously tyrannical; abuses of civil liberties under the
guise of fighting a “war on drugs” continues unabated;
abuses of the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting a “war
on terror” continues unabated; the federal police state continues
to grow exponentially; unconstitutional foreign entanglements continue
to proliferate; ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

In a book that
I have recommended numerous times, Hitler’s
Cross, Erwin Lutzer writes on page 72, “Through surveillance,
wiretaps, spying, and rewarding those who betrayed their friends,
Hitler tried to control the citizens of Germany.” On page 73,
Lutzer continues the thought saying, “But Hitler did not have
the technology to bring every subject of his realm into line.”
So, given the technology that is available today, what would Hitler
do differently if he were running things in Washington, D.C.? I
ask readers to think seriously about that question. What would Hitler
do differently?

Today, the
federal government monitors virtually every piece of electronic
communication. The federal government monitors virtually every major
banking transaction. It has spies infiltrated in even harmless organizations
all over the country. It threatens people with the loss of their
jobs or freedom (or both) to betray their friends. It spies on us
with satellites; it spies on us with drones. On July 6, 2012, President
Obama signed an Executive Order authorizing the federal government
to take control of America’s entire communications industry.
In 2006, under President George W. Bush, the US military began planning
armed confrontation against the American citizenry. (I have the
document in my possession.) And, of course, we must not overlook
the Patriot Act which has been authorized and reauthorized under
both Republicans and Democrats; the Military Commission Act which
was signed by G.W. Bush; NDAA 2012 and 2013 which was signed by
President Barack Obama, and which was passed by both Republicans
and Democrats. And let’s not forget the federal attack against
the Branch Davidians under Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno,
and the assault against the Randy Weaver household under Republican
President George Herbert Walker Bush.

So, again,
pick your poison. Both the socialist-leaning Democrats and the corporatist-leaning
Republicans in Washington, D.C., meet together in pointing the bayonet
against the American citizenry. And you really wonder why nothing
significant changes in this country?

And
in this regard, the platforms of the two major parties are completely
meaningless! I dare say that Barack Obama has never read the Democrat
platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says. I also guarantee
you that Mitt Romney hasn’t read the Republican platform and
doesn’t care one iota what it says either. Can anyone remember
when Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, in a rare moment
of candor, publicly admitted that he had not read his party’s
platform and didn’t care what it said? Party platforms are
for the benefit of rank and file party members to make them feel
like their ideas count for something to the party leadership. They
don’t!

So, do the
Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., differ? Yes! They
differ on how our freedoms will be taken from us. They differ on
the degree of government ownership and control. They differ on the
nuances of political tyranny. Where they are twins is in their lust
and ambition for power, in their approval of stripping more and
more freedoms from the American people, and in their absolute and
total disregard for constitutional government.

Without some
sort of “Great Awakening” both politically and spiritually,
whatever is left of our liberties is doomed – and both major
parties in Washington, D.C., are equally culpable.

July
13, 2012

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

The
Best of Chuck Baldwin

Much to the
chagrin of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a federal judge has
cleared the members of a Michigan militia who were accused by federal
law enforcement agents of conspiracy to commit sedition. Since you
didn’t hear much about this ruling from the national press
corps, here is one online version
of the report:

“Seven
members of a Michigan militia have been cleared of plotting to overthrow
the U.S. government as a judge dismissed the most serious charges
against them.

“In a
shock defeat for federal authorities, District Judge Victoria Roberts
said the group’s expressed hatred of law enforcement did not
amount to a conspiracy.

“The FBI
secretly planted an informant and an agent inside the Hutaree militia
in 2008 to collect hours of anti-government audio and video that
became the cornerstone of the case.

“Senior
officials had insisted they had captured homegrown rural extremists
poised for war.

“But the
judge said: ‘The court is aware that protected speech and mere
words can be sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however,
they do not rise to that level.’’

“Judge
Roberts granted requests for acquittal on the most serious charges:
conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the U.S. and
conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

“Other
weapons crimes linked to the alleged conspiracies were also dismissed.”

Read
more.

At this point,
I believe it is necessary that I review a column I wrote on April
6, 2010, regarding the Hutaree militia raid. As you read the words
that follow, please remember that they were written TWO YEARS AGO
– almost to the day.

[2010 column
starts here] I want to try and expound on William Norman Grigg’s
outstanding analysis of the Hutaree militia raid. In doing so, I
am going to also expand upon Grigg’s reference to James Madison’s
trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

Referring to
the federal indictment against the Hutaree militia, that alleged
members were making preparations for potential armed conflict against
law enforcement officers as a “seditious conspiracy,”
Grigg astutely noted, “If they were acquiring weapons and developing
appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against
government aggression, their actions – while possibly conspiratorial
in nature – don’t amount to a crime. This is particularly
true in light of our cultural history, in which sedition –
agitation to change the existing political order – is our proudest
civic tradition.”

Grigg then
rightly observes, “Government is nothing more than the rationalization
and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains
at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the indictment’s
description of Hutaree as ‘an anti-government extremist organization
which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law enforcement’
is a product of rhetorical onanism [from Genesis 38:9--a great analogy,
Will].”

As a general
rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If one
wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding
who or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one
should pick up a copy of R. J. Rummel’s book, “Death By
Government.” Since the end of World War II, Communist China
and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death and brutality;
however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage as
well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government
in Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this
figure is a conservative estimate noting the most credible resources
possible).

See.

Also
see.

Plus, does
anyone remember the violence that our federal government enacted
upon the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember
the mother shot in the head while innocently holding her little
baby in her own home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho
(after her small son was shot in the back by federal agents)? In
fact, the list of civilians who have been killed by federal law
enforcement agents over the years is a very long one. Granted, many
of these killings were done in lawful self-defense; but others amounted
to nothing less than old-fashioned murder (and never was the federal
agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

If one wants
to indict an “organization which advocates violence,”
then surely the central government in Washington, D.C., should be
indicted!

If Hutaree
members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone
– in the government or without – they deserved to be stopped.
If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against
government overreach or abuse – and would only resort to violence
in an act of lawful self-defense – they committed no crime
and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This
is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.

To charge,
however (as the indictment does), that Hutaree members (all 9 of
them!) planned “to levy war against the United States, [and]
to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United
States . . .” will take some doing to make stick. As Grigg
points out, “If Hutaree was preparing for armed DEFENSE against
criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless
as a broken pencil. If their efforts to ‘prevent, hinder, and
delay’ various government initiatives were confined to activism,
rather than armed conflict, they are – in that particular –
not substantially different from hundreds or thousands of other
groups.”

The entire
case against Hutaree appears to be based upon the testimony of an
FBI undercover agent inside the group. Placing agent provocateurs
inside groups such as Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police
agencies. This part of the story was broken by the Wall Street
Journal.

See the WSJ
report.

Using agent
provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the Kremlin and the
White House. Joel Skousen’s latest WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF contains
an extremely trenchant and insightful analysis of how Russia and
the US have used – and continue to use – this tactic.

Skousen writes,
“A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring
of agent provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for destruction
and induce radical elements of that group to perform crimes against
innocent civilians that will justify armed retaliation or arrest.
With the sudden surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest
of the radical Hutaree group in the US, it is helpful to review
the role of false flag terror attacks in Russia and the role of
agent provocateurs in the US as we analyze what’s really going
on.”

Skousen further
states, “As we move on to discuss the arrest of the radical
members of the Hutaree cult in Michigan, it is important to note
that virtually every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism
in the past decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI informants.
While none of us in America dispute the need to gain intelligence
on real threats to national security, we have to question the propriety
of training and pressuring informants (most of which have been forced
to accept the informant assignment in lieu of a prison term for
other crimes committed) to provoke and induce angry and unstable
dissidents to commit acts of terror.

“All too
often, FBI ‘informants’ have been pressured by superiors
to go far beyond informing. They have provided weapons, explosives,
and even acted as the guiding hand to map out the strategy and tactics
for performing the deed. These things only come out reluctantly
during trial, and even then I suspect that we are never allowed
to know the full extent of these provocations.”

To receive
a sample of Joel Skousen’s WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe
to this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to:
editor@worldaffairsbrief.com.

In addition,
Will Grigg states that another major component of the indictment
that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of “seditious
conspiracy.” As Grigg writes, “Whatever is eventually
learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment
against it could provide a template for ‘seditious conspiracy’
prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use
of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

“Indeed,
the definition of ‘conspiracy’ used in the Hutaree indictment
could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46
in public, thereby sharing James Madison’s commendably seditious
admonition that the people preserve ‘the advantage of being
armed’ in the event that insurrection against the central government
proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.”

Let’s
look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father,
author of the US Constitution, and America’s fourth President,
James Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing
federal army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular
army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and
let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still
it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments,
with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The highest number to which, according to the best computation,
a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one
hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth
part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not
yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or
thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting
to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered
by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,
and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections
and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced
could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Madison went
on to say, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,
the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms
a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable
than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding
the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which
are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Could Madison
be any clearer? He (and the rest of America’s founders) emphatically
expected the militia of the “several States” to be universally
armed against the potential encroachment on liberty by the central
government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be prepared
to use their arms against any aggressive nature of the federal government
to trample their freedoms.

This, of course,
reinforces the founders’ intent, that the 2nd Amendment protected
the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the express purpose
of providing the citizenry with the capability to repel (with violence)
any assault against their liberties by their own federal government.

So, pray tell,
would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements
in Federalist 46 as “seditious conspiracy”? If so, perhaps
we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!

Furthermore,
it is not lost to millions of Americans that this is the same federal
government (through Department of Homeland Security fusion centers)
that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who support
the 2nd Amendment; people who oppose the United Nations and illegal
immigration; people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and
Iraq War veterans as “extremists” and potential “dangerous
militia members.”

But, once again,
the federal government – along with their propagandists in
the major news media, including its artificial authority on militias,
the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery,
Alabama – is able to use the Hutaree militia to demonize militias
in general, and even more damaging, to try and destroy the concept
of constitutional State militias in the minds of the American public.

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.

I do know this:
I do not trust the federal government to tell the truth about anything!
They did not tell the truth about the Branch Davidians at Waco;
they did not tell the truth about Randy Weaver; they did not tell
the truth about Gordon Kahl; and, if their track record is any indicator,
it is doubtful that they are telling the truth about the Hutaree
militia. But we shall see.

In the meantime,
as William Norman Grigg opines, “There’s reason to believe
that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise
to exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly
invasive and esurient government.

“Whether
it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to ‘levy war’
against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute:
The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with
the public – in fact, it has been doing so for a long time.”
[2010 column ends here]

I invite readers
to visit William
Norman Grigg’s blog.

Well, now in
2012, the facts have all been laid bare. The Hutaree militia was
innocent of the federal government’s conspiracy charges, and
the federal government, once again, did not tell the truth. And,
furthermore, the words written by yours truly and Will Grigg seem
even more relevant today than they did two years ago, do they not?

In closing,
let me be very clear about this: I have nothing but appreciation
and respect for honest, God-fearing law enforcement personnel. I
count law enforcement personnel among my kinfolk, and I feel very
privileged to have been made an honorary deputy sheriff by my former
county sheriff. I certainly share no anti-law enforcement prejudice.
But the current trend to militarize and federalize law enforcement
is both unconstitutional and alarming. Even more alarming is the
manner in which the federal government and its toadies at the SPLC
are attempting to criminalize the expressions of freedom and constitutional
government – the same words, thoughts, and ideas expressed
by America’s Founding Fathers. To quote myself, “So, pray
tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements
in Federalist 46 as ‘seditious conspiracy’? If so, perhaps
we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!”

In the meantime,
congratulations to federal District Judge Victoria Roberts for representing
the court in a manner consistent with the founders’ intentions:
by using the gavel as a hammer to protect liberty rather than as
a rubber stamp to dismantle it – as so many federal judges
are inclined to do these days.

April
7, 2012

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

The
Best of Chuck Baldwin

While I was crisscrossing America during the campaign season last year, I repeatedly predicted that no matter who won the White House, John McCain or Barack Obama, neither would end the war in the Middle East. Many Democrats tried to argue with me, saying they knew Obama would end the war. Now they know I told the truth.

During his speech at West Point in which he announced the war’s escalation, he said, "[T]he Taliban [is] a ruthless, repressive and radical movement." What he (or John McCain or George W. Bush) never bothers to tell you is that this is the same Taliban that the US government SUPPORTED, back when it was fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Obama also said, "We are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end." That is a lie! US forces will stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama has no more intention of bringing all US troops out of Iraq than he does bringing them home from Afghanistan. Beyond that, there are more private contractors (read "mercenaries") operating in Iraq than US troops. And this will likely be the case in Afghanistan, as well.

But not only did Obama escalate the war in Afghanistan, he made it clear that he is prepared to extend the war into Pakistan. Obama’s speech was laced with references to Pakistan. Examples:

"Our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan." (Note: the latest reports state that there are no more than 100 al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.)

"We need a strategy that works on both sides of the [Afghanistan-Pakistan] border."

Obama even intimated that he was prepared to extend the war well beyond Pakistan. He told the West Point cadets, "The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends WELL BEYOND Afghanistan and Pakistan." (Emphasis added.)

Just how far beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan Obama intends to extend the war he did not say, but there is no question he is fully prepared to broaden the war even further.

Obama even had the unmitigated gall to criticize the Afghan government for being "hampered by corruption, the drug trade." Need I remind readers that for all its faults, when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, there was virtually NO DRUG TRADE coming out of Afghanistan? For all intents and purposes, the Taliban destroyed the drug business in Afghanistan. Opium and drug production only returned to Afghanistan after US forces displaced the Taliban. In fact, drug production in Afghanistan takes place right under the noses (no pun intended) and with the passive compliance of US forces.

But there is an even more evil and sinister motive for perpetual war than drug smuggling: perpetual war is a tool of globalists to enslave us!

Under the rubric of the "war on terror," Big Government elitists are able to dismantle the constitutional safeguards of our freedom. Without 9/11 and the "war on terror" there would be no Patriot Act, for example.

Remember, the Patriot Act was first proposed during the Clinton administration, but a recalcitrant Republican Congress refused to approve it. But with a Republican in the White House (G.W. Bush), those same Republicans easily passed the Patriot Act into law. And to show you how this partisanship stuff works, those same Democrats who tried to pass the Patriot Act in the 90s (called by a different name, of course), voted AGAINST the Patriot Act when proposed by Republicans in the early 2000s. And since we’re on the Patriot Act, don’t hold your breath waiting for a Democratic Congress or the Democrat Barack Obama to expunge it.

Now think it through: first, the Democrats tried to pass the Patriot Act (under a different name) and Republicans opposed it. Next, Republicans (who once opposed it) passed the Patriot Act and Democrats (who once proposed it) opposed it. Now, both Democrats and Republicans (who have both opposed and proposed it) accept and embrace the Patriot Act. And with all that political posturing and grandstanding aside, the Patriot Act is only law today because WE ARE AT WAR.

Without war, we would not have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — which cannot even keep uninvited people out of the White House — the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and thousands of laws and regulations that trample constitutionally protected liberties.

In the name of "War," our government can record our phone calls, read our emails, monitor our financial transactions and movements, and even place an Army combat division (USNORTHCOM) on American soil to WATCH — OR EVEN FIGHT AGAINST — US! And some of you don’t even give it a second thought. Why? WE ARE AT WAR!

I know! I know! Obama promises to "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the war effort, send more than 50,000 troops plus thousands of independent contractors, and ship millions of tons of equipment half way around the world, and then turn around and bring them all back home IN EIGHTEEN MONTHS? I might have been born in the morning, but it was not yesterday morning!

Of course, that brings up another purpose globalists have in keeping us at war: the financial cost of waging war keeps the country in debt and keeps the Fed’s printing presses running.

Come on, folks, face it: there are many people who get "filthy, stinking" rich during times of war. If you have not read USMC Brigadier General Smedley Butler’s book, War is a Racket, you need to get it.

After winning the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the French Order of the Black Star and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor, Butler said (as quoted in Common Sense magazine), "I spent 33 years and four months in active service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902—1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Ladies and Gentlemen, do you really think things have gotten any better since General Butler wrote those words?

All in all, perpetual war serves two great interests: it helps the Machiavellians among us strip us of our liberties, and it helps the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars. For these reasons, Barack Obama will do nothing to end the war in the Middle East. If anything, he will expand the war beyond Afghanistan, as he plainly suggested in his speech at West Point.

Once again, unless Americans recognize that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are persistent in serving the financial interests of internationalists (not to mention their own personal financial interests) and are more than eager to trample constitutional liberties in the process, nothing will change in our country — except that our liberties and way of life will continue to evaporate.

And as I’ve said before, I am absolutely convinced that the only way the evil machinations of the globalists now running things in DC can be thwarted is by State governments drawing a firm and determined line in the sand in defense of their liberties. And they need to start drawing that line NOW!

In the meantime, the Bush-Obama war (it was never America’s war, as it was never constitutionally declared by the people’s representatives) drags on and on and on.

Chuck Baldwin [send him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here is his website.

The Best of Chuck Baldwin

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.

Chuck Baldwin [send him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here is his website.

The Best of Chuck Baldwin

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?

Read
the rest of the article

November
24, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

Corsi quotes
Lord Christopher Monckton as telling a Minnesota Free Market Institute
audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, "Your president
will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because
they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing
regimes from the European Union will rubberstamp it. Virtually nobody
won’t sign it."

Corsi quotes
Monckton as also saying, "I read that treaty and what it says
is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word
‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of
the new entity."

See
a YouTube video segment of Lord Monckton’s address. Plus, here
is a later Fox Business interview with Lord Monckton, in which
he further expands his thoughts.

Did Lord Monckton
exaggerate?

My research
of the Climate Change document that Monckton references found the
following: it is a 181-page working document that does not mention
the words "ballot," "elected official," or "vote"
anywhere in it. In my opinion, Lord Monckton did not exaggerate;
if anything, he may have understated the situation. The document
does indeed appear to be the institutional framework for an unelected
supreme communist-style world government.

By signing
this document, the United States (and other industrial nations)
will forever take responsibility for the ills of backwards and third-world
countries. And, according to Lord Monckton, this would include China
and India, along with the countries of Africa. Notice:

Page 6, "PP.15
Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical
responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes
and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate
historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well
as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining
global carbon space . . . Warming of the climate system, as a consequence
of human activity, is unequivocal."

Page 38, "28.
The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due
to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries,
constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties
(particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries
with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable
to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries
with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing
strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable
development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium
Development Goals."

Page 122, "17.
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDC’s economy and also compensate
for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity . . ."

"(b) Africa,
in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated
for environmental, social and economic losses . . ."

By signing
and being party to this document, we are accepting legal financial
responsibility to support non-developed countries FOREVER.

Page 27, "(b)
Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or]
All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups
requiring special protection . . ."

Page 43, "41.
(a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed
country Parties." These funds will go directly to governments
and "community organizations."

Page 39, "33.
[The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range
of USD 70–140 billion) per year."

The commitments
of the developed countries are "economy wide." Page 58,
"7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are
legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction
commitments."

"(b) Mitigation
actions by developing countries are VOLUNTARY . . ." (Emphasis
added.)

The system
appears to be loaded to ensure that the world body overseeing this
document is granted total control for the enforcement of the requirements
of this document throughout all developed countries. Penalties for
non-compliance by developed countries are scattered throughout the
document.

It appears
that what a U.S. President and Congress (Republican or Democratic)
could not do through the constitutional legislative process, they
are attempting to do through international treaty. Therefore, it
is my studied opinion that Lord Monckton’s assessment that this
upcoming Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen is a "pretext"
for the establishment of one world government is "spot-on."

It does seem
to be getting clearer and clearer that if the elected civil magistrates
in Washington, D.C., do not quickly grow some backbone and develop
some sagacity as to the direction these globalists are taking our
country, resistance will be forced (in one way or another) upon
the States and the People, because it is not possible for the policies
and financial burden that are – and will be – levied upon the backs
of the American people to be sustained without the surrender of
independence, the abridgment of constitutional government, and the
loss of liberty. Stay tuned.

November
2, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

An underreported
(what’s new?) story out of a little town in Montana has brought
real-life drama to the CBS blockbuster TV series. Interestingly
enough, CBS is the only major news network that has covered the
Montana story.

In the little
town of Hardin, Montana (which is about the same size as the fictitious
town of Jericho, Kansas, in the TV series), a private security firm,
American Police Force (APF), has been contracted to provide all
police services and to manage the operation of the town’s jail.
According to local news reports out of Billings, Montana, “American
Police Force officials showed up in Mercedes SUV’s that had ‘Hardin
Police’ stenciled on the vehicles. The twist, the city of Hardin
doesn’t have a police department.

“Two Rivers
Authority [the city's economic development agency] officials say
having APF patrol the streets was never part of their agenda.” (Source:
KULR-8 Television, Billings, Montana)

Until now,
the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office was responsible for patrolling
the city. However, numerous Hardin citizens have testified to APF
mercenaries patrolling Hardin’s streets.

The Hardin
jail is an interesting situation, all by itself. Completed in September
2007, the 464-bed facility has sat totally empty (which begs an
investigative analysis as to how and why the facility was built
in the first place). APF promises to fill the jail (with whom is
not clear) and also intends to build a 30,000-square-foot military-style
training facility and a 75,000-square-foot dormitory for trainees.
Costs are to be covered by Ravenwood’s — excuse me — APF’s “business
activities,” which includes security and training, weapons and equipment
sales, surveillance, and investigations.

Of course,
under our Constitution, there can be no such thing as an “American
Police Force” in the United States. Any kind of national police
force is not only unconstitutional; it is anathema to everything
American law and jurisprudence is built upon. Law enforcement is
clearly and plainly the responsibility of the states and local communities.
That a mercenary organization would take the moniker American Police
Force is, by itself, disconcerting. But there is much more.

APF touts itself
as providing security and investigative work to clients in “all
50 States and most Countries.” It boasts having “rapid response
units awaiting our orders worldwide.” It further brags that it can
field a battalion-sized team of Special Forces soldiers “within
72 hours.” APF states that it “plays a critical role in helping
the U.S. government meet vital homeland security and national defense
needs.”

Yet, an Associated
Press search of two comprehensive federal government contractor
databases turned up no record of American Police Force. Representatives
of security trade groups said they had never heard of APF. Alan
Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel for the Professional
Services Council, said, “They’re really invisible.”

An attorney
for APF, Maziar Mafi, said the company was a spin-off of a major
security firm, but declined to name the parent company or give any
other details.

But at least
one source reports, “American Police Force, the paramilitary unit
patrolling a small town in Montana, has been exposed as being a
front group for the disgraced private military contractor Blackwater,
now called ‘Xe’.”

Whoever is
backing APF has deep pockets; that much is for sure. That APF might
be connected to Blackwater makes this situation even more problematic.
But there is still more.

According to
numerous local news reports, APF’s lead figure has a criminal history.
APF’s head is a man named Michael Hilton. And recent revelations
have turned up the fact that Hilton has served several years in
jail — along with being served several civil judgments — for fraud.
In fact, Hilton is currently scheduled to appear in a California
court over an outstanding judgment in a fraud case. This has caused
the Two Rivers Authority (TRA) to step back from the APF deal. And
at this writing, the future of the agreement between TRA and APF
is uncertain.

Adding to the
dubious image of APF is the accusation that their on-the-ground
leaders seem to be Russians. According to Hardin residents, the
APF officer in charge had a “thick Russian accent.” (Of course,
Hilton himself is Serbian, and it appears that many of his personnel
are likewise Serbian.) Residents also state that they were told
seventy-five percent of the security officers that were to be trained
would be “international.” Is this what we have to look forward to:
foreign mercenaries — employed by international corporations and
backed by the federal government — being used to police American
cities?

Local protests
against the introduction of APF mercenaries in Hardin have already
caused APF to change its name. Late news reports state that the
private contractor is now operating under the name of American Private
Police Force.

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.

The Hardin
saga is both noteworthy and troublesome. It is the latest example
— but certainly not the first — of how private security companies
are being employed as law enforcement personnel.

Retired
lawman Jim Kouri recently wrote a fascinating piece in which
he chronicles the growing trend of private security companies exercising
police powers. Kouri summarizes an American Society for Industrial
Security report, saying, “There are more than one million contract
security guards, with perhaps another million guards who are proprietary
security officers who are hired directly by businesses and institutions.
On the other hand, there are about 700,000 sworn law enforcement
officers working for towns, cities, counties, states and the federal
government.”

Of course,
most of these “private police” mercenaries are military-trained.
And they are also the ones providing most of the military-style
training to America’s various law enforcement agencies.

Kouri goes
on to point out that Lexington’s (Kentucky) Police Department contracted
Blackwater Security International to provide “homeland security
training.” And in New Orleans, Louisiana, mercenaries openly patrol
city streets. Kouri notes Blackwater officials as saying they are
on contract with the Department of Homeland Security and have been
given the authority “to use lethal force if necessary.”

All of the
above is disconcerting enough, but when one factors in President
Barack Obama’s desire to create a “Civilian Defense Force,” potential
problems only intensify. For example, in 1995, the United Nations’
International Police Task Force (UNIPTF) was created. Ostensibly,
the UNIPTF was formed to “carry out programs of police assistance
in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Then, in 2003 the Civilian Police International
(CPI) was created. This was a joint venture between the U.S. State
Department and such notable private companies as Wackenhut and Kellogg
Brown & Root (a Halliburton company; and, by the way, so is
Blackwater. But this is just a coincidence, right?). The stated
purpose was for “international law enforcement and criminal justice
programs.” Inertia for mercenary-style (backed by the federal —
or even international — government) law enforcement has been growing
ever since.

The question
must then be asked: “Could the whole APF and Hardin, Montana, affair
be a test run for Obama’s budding Civilian Defense Force?”

In the CBS
TV series, Jericho, residents resisted the federal government’s
mercenary force, Ravenwood, and fought ferociously for their freedom
and independence. At the time the show aired, it all seemed like
fantasy. But if you talk with the residents of Hardin, Montana,
today, they might say that fantasy is fast becoming reality.

Stay alert,
America: your town could be next.

P.S. I have
posted a
web page devoted to the Hardin, Montana, story for anyone that
wants to review or keep abreast of this situation.

October
10, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

Modern living
within the world’s only "superpower" has created a giant
unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect
the government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores
stocked, our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the
desire to make government the panacea for all our problems, we have
sold not only our independence, but also our virtue.

Where the federal
government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to accept
limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it
has become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority
over virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the
process, it decided it didn’t need God, either.

It is no hyperbole
to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a "Ban
God" bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer
and Bible reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying
in Jesus’ name, burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court
chief justices from their positions for posting the Ten Commandments,
or threatens high school principals with jail for asking the blessing,
the federal government has invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our
country as surely as did Old Testament Israel.

Although the
comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren’t paying attention,
this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot believe.
For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.

First of all,
Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I’m not
concentrating on the "why" or "who’s right or wrong"
of the equation. I’m simply telling you, war between Israel and
Iran could break out at any time. And when it does, the chances
that it will not become nuclear and not become global are miniscule.
Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear war have never been
greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO,
could become a reality in these United States in the very near future.
(I strongly urge readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO
and watch them, because this could be our future.)

Secondly, America
is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of this
year, America’s budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion.
The debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the
coffin for America’s fiscal health will be the decision by China
to dump the U.S. dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the
death knell for our financial stability (and a painful lesson in
sowing and reaping).

It is estimated
that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and when China
dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize
it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America
will be thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is
planning to dump the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing
and stockpiling gold at an unprecedented level. This is why gold
has suddenly surged to over $1,000 per ounce and why it will continue
to rise.)

Third, the
paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both government
and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of "government
solution." If they keep hyping this "pandemic," mass
hysteria and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in
the media) will result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form
of forced vaccination, quarantine (maybe this is what all those
internment camps will be used for), and martial law.

Exactly how
and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be
seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next
few months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And
most Americans are totally unprepared for what’s coming.

If you are
able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your lifestyle
in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you
don’t have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some
sort of preserved food pantry, do it. If you don’t have some kind
of survival plan in place for you and your family, get one. If you
are not physically fit, get in shape. If you are able to move to
a more secure, out-of-harm’s-way location, do it. (During any kind
of financial or societal meltdown, urban areas will quickly turn
into war zones. Can anyone say, "New Orleans after Hurricane
Katrina"?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube,
get your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.

Am I worried
or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The potential
good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God will
protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to
rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government
is revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal
government is far, far away. You know, like America’s Founding Fathers
did 233 years ago.

In the meantime,
get ready. It’s going to be a rocky road.

September
25, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

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.

As people read
my columns all across America, I have had numerous readers contact
me, saying that they have personally witnessed the transportation
of construction materials used for internment camps, have actually
worked in and around them, or have personally seen such camps. These
eyewitness testimonies have come from very credible people, including
law enforcement and military personnel, as well as airline pilots
and construction workers.

Just a few
weeks ago, I was aboard a cross-country flight when the passenger
I was sitting next to (a total stranger) asked me to take a look
out the window. He asked, "Do those look like internment camps
to you?" I was astonished that the man (1) would even know
to notice such a potentiality, and (2) would be so bold as to ask
such a question of a total stranger. I must say, I was extremely
happy to make his acquaintance. And we had a very warm and invigorating
discussion the rest of the trip.

We were flying
over Colorado, over extreme wilderness terrain, and, yes, right
in the middle of nowhere, the buildings and surrounding features
that I saw sure looked like internment camps to me. Of course, flying
at over 30,000 feet in the sky makes it difficult for any kind of
detailed analysis to take place; that is for sure.

Then, a friend
recently brought this
URL to my attention.

This is an
advertisement by the National Guard promoting the Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist."
Question: why does the National Guard need to recruit Internment/Resettlement
Specialists? What do they know that we should know?

Furthermore,
I have had military personnel tell me that many of the US military
bases that have been recently "closed" are also being
prepared as large-scale "holding areas."

Read
the rest of the article

August
13, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

Byrd and Melanie
were shot to death in their own home a week ago Thursday. So far,
eight people have been arrested in the case: seven men and one woman.
The seven men are each charged with two open counts of murder, and
the woman is charged with accessory to murder after the fact. Law
enforcement officials said yesterday that at least one more "person
of interest" is being sought.

The Billings
murder case was broken open by the fact that their home was equipped
with a surveillance system, which recorded the vehicle used to transport
the murderers to the home and probably much of the criminal activity
inside the house, although the sheriff’s office has not released
the video of what was recorded inside the house. The video of the
van led police to the suspects. Our State Attorney, Bill Eddins,
says that all of the perpetrators who actively took part in the
shootings are in custody. At least five of the men were inside the
house when the murders took place; and police said the killers were
in and out of the house in four minutes.

In a news conference
yesterday, Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan and State Attorney
Bill Eddins said they have the murder "weapon or weapons."
They also said that the remaining "person of interest"
was supposed to disable the surveillance system but did not do so,
which is why the system was still operational when the crimes occurred.
In addition, Morgan and Eddins said the motive was robbery, because
a small safe was taken from the house, but that other motives could
also apply to the killings. Federal agencies are also assisting
with the Billings murders, including the FBI, BATFE, and DEA.

To my way of
thinking, this case smacks of much more than a robbery gone badly.
There were at least eight, and maybe nine, people involved. Maybe
more. The invasion and killings were perpetrated in less than four
minutes, by multiple assailants, and with "military precision."
The home invasion took place at approximately 7:30 p.m. local time.
And at the time of the shooting, nine of the Billings children were
in the home.

I believe murder,
not robbery, was the motive. Extraordinary planning and the number
of personnel involved indicate to me that the Billings were executed,
and that robbery was an afterthought – or was even intended to be
a ruse to mislead law enforcement. The real reason behind the killings
may never be known, of course.

Regardless
of the "why" and "how" of the killings, one
thing is painfully obvious: a violent attack took place against
a man and his wife inside their own home. And while the circumstances
of the Billings case may be sensational, the simple fact that a
couple was murdered inside their own home has become rather commonplace
throughout the United States. Nationwide, home invasions are skyrocketing.

Home is the
one place where most of us feel safe and protected. Even those who
have a keen sense of self-defense feel free to let their guard down
at home. And, sadly, most people do not possess a keen sense of
self-defense. Most people have the deluded opinion that law enforcement
will protect them. But even law enforcement professionals will tell
you it is not their job to protect citizens; it is their job to
apprehend and bring those who have committed crimes to justice.
In other words, after you are dead, the cops will try to catch the
guys who killed you.

It is time
that people wake up to the fact that the responsibility of self-defense
rests with each individual citizen. We are all vulnerable to attack – even
in our homes! For this reason, our federal Constitution and most
(if not all) State constitutions recognize the Natural Law right
of people to keep and bear arms.

Over the past
40-plus years, however, miscreants in Washington, D.C., and in our
State capitols have been whittling away at the right of the people
to keep and bear arms. Lawful gun dealers are being harangued and
harassed out of existence by the BATFE. Law enforcement agencies
and State prosecutors often side with criminals when they are shot
in self-defense by intended victims (especially in the Northeast).
The media often characterizes lawful gun owners as "gun nuts"
or "militia members" to try to create the impression that
they are "dangerous" or "extremist." Public
education – especially higher education – is often a willing participant
in helping to demonize gun owners. Even Hollywood often uses its
influence to sway public opinion against gun owners. All this, coupled
with a natural lazy tendency of urban living, equates to a careless
and defenseless society: something both would-be tyrants in government
and street criminals love.

Fortunately,
America’s founders were wiser than most of today’s generation. They
understood the relationship between the citizen’s right (and determination)
to keep and bear arms and his or her safety and security.

For example,
Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms." He also said, "Laws that forbid the
carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined
nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse
for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather
to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Likewise, Thomas
Paine said, "[A]rms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader
and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world
deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have
a place in the heart of man, the weak will become prey to the strong.
The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and
facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

The Billings
double murder is the latest example of just how vulnerable we all
are to the violent tendencies of evil people. For this reason (and
more), every American should (1) resist any and all attempts by
government to curtail or restrict our legal right to keep and bear
arms, and (2) purchase, practice with, and always keep our own personal
firearms handy. Furthermore, we should always live in a heightened
"state of alert" (even in our own homes), because both
our lives and our liberty may depend on it.

July
18, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

When President
George W. Bush was first elected back in 2000, I well remember the
way Christian conservatives went gaga over him. They would deny
it, of course, but it was more than hero worship: they acted as
if he were a god. Life-size posters filled Christian bookstores.
Religious broadcasters and televangelists swooned over him like
16-year-old girls used to swoon over Elvis Presley. Pastors invoked
his name almost as a prayer. The Religious Right acted like they
had died and gone to Heaven. In the minds of Christian conservatives,
G.W. Bush could do no wrong. The result of all this sophomoric silliness
was that the Religious Right became blind, impotent lackeys to a
Big-Government, big-spending, Orwellian, and inept administration
– maybe one of the worst in U.S. history.

And all of
this was not lost to the political left. They called Christian conservatives
"dupes," "buffoons," "gullible," and
a whole lot more. But now it is the liberals’ turn to take a voyage
in the vehicle of villainous vulnerability.

First, there
was the major media’s "anointing" of President Barack
Obama. Yes, I use the word "anointing" on purpose. Make
no mistake about it: in the minds of the major media, Obama was
not inaugurated; he was canonized. No pope, king, or potentate of
history received the coronation that Barack Obama received. To the
liberals who dominate the news media and entertainment industry
in this country, Obama is not a President: he is a god.

For example,
did readers see the way NBC newsman, Brian Williams, bowed to his
majesty, Barack Obama? (If you missed it, see
it here.)

Where are Keith
Olbermann’s eloquent rebukes of the Military Commissions Act (MCA),
the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and many other Big-Government intrusions
into the private lives of the American people that were first instituted
under George W. Bush and that now continue under Barack Obama? When
he wants to, Olbermann can be a very convincing, articulate defender
of constitutional liberties. However, it seems that Olbermann is
only interested in constitutional government when it is a Republican
trampling it. Since Obama became President, Olbermann has not only
muted his criticism against unconstitutional policies emanating
from the White House, he has joined the chorus of mindless worship
of the new President.

(Here
are Olbermann’s trenchant comments on President Bush’s support
for the Military Commissions Act and denying Habeas Corpus –
something we will not see from Olbermann regarding the same policies
emanating from the Obama White House.)

Read
the rest of the article

June
13, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

DIGG THIS

Let’s
cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice
for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the
GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative
could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson,
or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles,
each of these men is as phony as a three-dollar bill. That they
are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than
laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing
review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to
visit this
web page often.

The more that
conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP’s "top
tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact
does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should
one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has
forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy.
As they say here in the south, "That dog won’t hunt."
Not anymore.

On the whole,
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the
aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the
very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed
to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both
pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive
war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military
Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment.
I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man
and was a bulldog in fighting Bush’s amnesty for illegal aliens
proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military
Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the
life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues.
All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole
package."

He has a twenty-year
record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished.
Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington,
D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself,
should be worth a conservative’s support.

In fact, Ron
Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by
both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill
as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no"
votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN
physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants
a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative,
constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index
in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the
most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party.
His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen
or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

See the
Freedom Index here.

Ron Paul’s
commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He
is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of
Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized
the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human
life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also
recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn
children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe
v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers.
In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand.
(It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right’s
pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support
Paul’s pro-life bill.)

In addition
to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is
one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against
the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security
and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted
by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR).

Another critical
issue in next year’s election is the gun issue (it is always a critical
issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands
atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he
truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have
the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive
review of the presidential contenders’ records on the Second Amendment,
go here.

Regarding the
war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional
conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft.
Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul
subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements
with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron
Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his
neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America.
He believes that it is not America’s responsibility to police the
world. He believes America’s political leaders are duty-bound to
protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of
internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive
invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul’s principled
position.

In fact, those
conservatives who have followed President Bush’s preemptive war
doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative
principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives,
especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine’s
"just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the
conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have
foolishly followed Bush’s "preemptive war" theory, which,
before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with
Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."

Of course,
Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored
H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According
to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional
tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to
respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage
war against the United States while limiting his authority to only
those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited
authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the
practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs
in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

If the United
States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost
nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion,
and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there
is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr.
Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his
al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist
attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

And speaking
of Christianity, Ron Paul’s testimony is clear. He has publicly
acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul,
this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment.
This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his
Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently,
Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is comfortable
talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering
that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful.
But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ
is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that
I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but
from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for
the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

Could conservative
Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron
Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win
the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would
be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he
would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated.
Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even
some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush’s
Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning
the Republican nomination.

Face it: the
big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international
bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too
honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for
their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning
the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative,
and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative
Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

See
the Ron Paul File

August
29, 2007

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

DIGG THIS

Once again,
the burden of responsibility to help maintain America’s liberty
rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. That should
not surprise us, because it has always been this way. Part of what
made America great was old-fashioned, tell-it-like-it-is, no-nonsense
preaching. Most of what we hear today is a bunch of mealy-mouthed,
pussyfooting, ear-tickling, don’t-offend-anyone preaching, which
has largely contributed to America’s current slippery slope into
the sewer. But if you thought it could not get any worse, guess
again.

A startling
television news report from Shreveport, Louisiana has revealed a
sinister plot hatched deep inside the diabolical brain cells of
the Bush administration to use America’s pulpits as promoters of
tyranny. That is a strong statement, I know. But it is true.

According to
KSLA television in Shreveport, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) intends to use America’s preachers to help pave the way for
martial law in the event of another terrorist attack upon the United
States.

The
KSLA report begins, "Could martial law ever become a reality
in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack
on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA 12 has discovered that
the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest
problem: Us."

The report
continued by saying, "[G]un confiscation is exactly what happened
during the state of emergency following Hurricane Katrina in New
Orleans, along with forced relocation. U.S. Troops also arrived,
something far easier to do now, thanks to last year’s elimination
of the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army
troops from policing on American soil.

"If martial
law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie, The
Siege, easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical.
And that’s exactly what the ‘Clergy Response Team’ helped accomplish
in the wake of Katrina."

The report
went on to say: "[C]lergy response teams would walk a tight-rope
during martial law between the demands of the government on the
one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. ‘In a lot
of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods
in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,’ assured Sandy
Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of
Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

"For the
clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping
calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically
Romans 13."

Dear Reader,
are you getting this?

In order to
convince American citizens to surrender their firearms to the government
during a time of martial law, DHS is enlisting the assistance of
America’s pastors. According to the DHS, my job as a church pastor,
is to tell my congregation that, according to Romans 13, they must
surrender their firearms when the government asks them to do so.

Of course,
faithful readers of this column know that I have already addressed
the Romans
13 question.

For those who
are ignorant of Romans 13, let me address the issue bluntly: According
to Romans 13, every citizen is only bound to obey his or her governing
official to the degree that the governing official does not violate
the duty of the citizen to obey the "higher powers" which,
for Americans, are God and the U.S. Constitution. In other words,
no Christian can be ordered to disobey God, and no American citizen
can be ordered to disobey the U.S. Constitution. Properly understood,
Romans 13 teaches that each and every governing official (including
the President of the United States and all those under him) must
submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Article VI,
Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

So, what does
the Constitution say regarding the disarmament of American citizens?
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution could not be clearer:
"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."

Did you get
that? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL
NOT BE INFRINGED." [Emphasis added]

Therefore,
any attempt to disarm the American people must be viewed as an act
of tyranny and must be resisted.

The right to
keep and bear arms is rooted deep in American history. I remind
readers that it was the attempted gun confiscation of the colonists’
arms, which had been cached at Concord, Massachusetts, that directly
precipitated the beginning of America’s fight for independence.

America’s founders
were clear on this subject. Our first President, George Washington,
called our firearms "the people’s liberty teeth." Our
third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas
Jefferson, said, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use
of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right
to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves
against tyranny in government."

America’s founders
spoke unanimously on the subject. Patrick Henry said, "The
great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may
have a gun." Samuel Adams said, "The said Constitution
shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
own arms."

And what did
the Lord Jesus Christ tell His followers on this subject? Jesus
said in Luke 11:21, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace,
his goods are in peace." Did you see that? Jesus said that
in order for a man’s goods to be "in peace" it was necessary
that he be ARMED. Now, I don’t know about you, but I will take the
word of Jesus over the word of a DHS official anytime.

Furthermore,
Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36, "[H]e that hath no
sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Upon hearing
the words of Jesus, Simon Peter responded by saying, "Lord,
behold, here are two swords." (vs. 38) That means at least
two of Jesus’ disciples were armed with swords (the 1st Century
equivalent of a modern handgun, something used for personal protection),
and Jesus did not rebuke them or ask them to surrender their swords.
He merely said, "It is enough."

I realize that
after Simon Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of the man as
soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus
told him to "put up thy sword." But notice, He did not
tell him to "give up" his sword; he merely told him it
was not time to use it, because it was in the plan and providence
of God that Jesus be taken to Pilate, that He might be crucified
for our sins.

Don’t tell
me that the Bible teaches pacifism, because it doesn’t. I am a Christian,
and I am a pastor. And I agree with Charlton Heston who said that
they could have his guns "over my cold, dead hands." If
DHS believes that I will ask my congregation to give up their firearms,
they are grossly mistaken.

It also needs
to be pointed out that, apparently, DHS must already be planning
to declare martial law in the United States or else this kind of
advanced strategy would not even be necessary. Why would they already
be asking pastors to be prepared to request their church members
give up their guns if they did not intend to declare martial law?

Now, what every
single church-going Christian in America should immediately find
out for themselves is, What does my pastor intend to do? Will he
ask me to surrender my guns, or not? I highly encourage every reader
who currently attends church to ask your pastor this question RIGHT
NOW.

Of course,
the next question Christians need to ask themselves is, What will
I do if my pastor says he would ask me to surrender my guns to the
government? I suggest that every church member in America settle
this matter right now. And if you discover that your pastor would
indeed ask you to surrender your guns (or equivocate by saying he
would have to "pray about it") if asked to do so, you
should immediately leave that church and find a pastor who believes
the Bible and supports the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, if you
do not currently own a firearm, you might want to heed the words
of Jesus and go buy one.

So, once again,
the burden of responsibility to help maintain America’s liberty
rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. Will we be preachers
of truth or promoters of tyranny?

August
23, 2007

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

DIGG THIS

It seems
that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our
Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or
otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What
about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government.
Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words
to that effect.

No doubt, some
who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what
they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On
the other hand, let’s be honest enough to admit that some who use
this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And
Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is
the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless,
for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed),
let’s briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter
13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every
soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not
a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid
of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise
of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But
if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the
sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause
pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually
upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute
to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honor to whom honor."

Do our Christian
friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose
President Bush or any other political leader really believe that
civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want
without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example,
what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom
of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval
custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject’s
bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian
brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit
to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect
any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are
limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does
this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not.
An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power
to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has
overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to
tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course
not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited
authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty
is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same
token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his
authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13
clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining
its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but
to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good
. . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath
upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that
civil government must not be a "terror to good works."
It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people.
God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps
that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

Civil government
is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a
minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to
"execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no
authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch.
Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst
of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter
13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate
God’s principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian
taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God’s
principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
and Jezebel? Did David violate God’s principle of submission to
authority when he refused to surrender to Saul’s troops? Did Daniel
violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed
the king’s law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew
children violate God’s principle of submission to authority when
they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist
violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he publicly
scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other
Apostles violate God’s principle of submission to authority when
they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did
Paul violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he
refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his
missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail
as he did out of jail.

Remember that
every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil
authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church
history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities
of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and
prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle
of submission to authority?

So, even the
great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the
writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even
civil authority – is limited.

Plus, Paul
makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated
on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said,
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but
also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil
authority is more than just "because they said so." It
is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason
for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s
laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both
rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore,
there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either
governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both)
could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we
decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue.
And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that,
we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy.
We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country.
America’s "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or
any group of men. America’s "supreme Law" does not rest
with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In
America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land."
Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit
to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand
the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means
that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who
occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth
in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government,
it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials,
to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter
13 reads to Americans:

"Let every
soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution]
but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance
of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the
evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the
Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth
not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore
ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution
is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due;
custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Dear Christian
friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility
to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of
Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore,
Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives
submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government
that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing
document ever devised by man. As
I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles form
the foundation of all three of America’s founding documents: The
Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill
of Rights.

As a result,
Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the
painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy
their civil authorities.

The problem
in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to
violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey,
the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist
and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many
of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

August
11, 2007

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.