Pastor Chuck Baldwin

I Wish Joe Stack Had Not Killed himself

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2010-02-18T20:28:52-07:00

By Chuck Baldwin
February 19, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

All of us are now aware of the Texas man who yesterday flew his private plane into a 7-story Austin office building. Apparently, he intentionally crashed his plane into the building to target the IRS offices that were housed inside the facility.

As I am writing this column just hours after the event took place, there has not yet been a lot of time for the major news media talking heads to spin the story. By the time this column is released on Friday, however, I'm sure we will all have been inundated with copious references to this man, Joe Stack, as being "off his rocker," or similar assertions. Perhaps our friends at DHS will label Stack a "right-wing domestic terrorist." However, Mr. Stack apparently left behind a "suicide manifesto" explaining his actions. After carefully reading Stack's manifesto, I am quite convinced that he was not crazy, and he was not a "terrorist." However, he was angry.

A lot of us are angry--and for many of the same reasons that Mr. Stack was angry! While I would certainly take exception to some of the things Stack says in his manifesto, he said things that many of us are feeling.

Stack began his manifesto by saying, "If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, 'Why did this have to happen?' The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time."

He goes on to say, "Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble [principles] represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was 'no taxation with representation' . . . These days anyone who really stands up for that [principle] is promptly labeled a 'crackpot,' traitor and worse."

For the most part, he's right about that, of course. It has been a long time since the average hardworking American has been represented in Washington, D.C. By and large, the politicians in DC represent only Big Money interests. Just try talking with your congressman or senator and see how much personal interest he or she takes in anything you have to say. As for emails, letters, and faxes, unless they number in the tens of thousands, they are mostly used as kindling for the fireplace.

Obviously, Mr. Stack had long felt the frustration of being ignored by these pimps in Washington that we know as congressmen. He wrote, "While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say."

I suppose that just about every American could say the same thing.

Then, regarding our current tax system, Stack wrote, "Here we have a [tax] system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly 'holds accountable' its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law 'requires' a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not 'duress' [then] what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is."

He also wrote, "However, this is where I learned that there are two 'interpretations' for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us."

However, I think a better way of putting his statement would have been, "There are two interpretations for every law; one for the GOVERNMENT, and one for the rest of us." And only the most naïve among us would not understand that statement.

According to Stack's manifesto, he earned an engineering degree with the goal of becoming an "independent engineer." He said this about working his way through college: "I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time."

I know that feeling! My wife and I married between my sophomore and junior years of college, and for months we had a grand total of $15 a week to spend on groceries. And believe me: that did not go very far--not even in 1974. How many politicians on Capitol Hill do you think could even remotely relate to Mr. Stack?

Stack later said, "I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself."

Wow! What a revolutionary idea: taking responsibility for yourself! Now I know that practically no one on Capitol Hill can relate to Mr. Stack!

After quoting a portion of the tax law relating to Section 1706 (Treatment of Certain Technical Personnel), Stack wrote, "The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave."

His manifesto clearly reveals bitterness and resentment toward the IRS, the tax system, the banker and Big Business government bailouts, and the emergence of police-state attitudes and actions in the aftermath of 9/11. He expressed disdain for "the monsters of organized religion." He talked about his move from California to Texas. He referred to a divorce and the way his savings and retirement had been wiped out after a career of working "100-hour workweeks."

Stack also noted, "The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government." I can say "Amen" to that.

Stack's conclusion: "I have had all I can stand."

In what was obviously a reference to what he was about to do, he wrote, "Nothing changes unless there is a body count."

Then, later he said, "But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at 'big brother' while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough."

Stack wrapped up his manifesto by saying, "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

See Joe Stack's manifesto here.

My heart goes out to Joe Stack! The sentiments expressed above are shared by millions of Americans who are also fed up with Big Brother. We are fed up with our country being turned into a burgeoning police state, under the rubric of "national security." We are fed up with the harassments of the IRS. We know the "war on drugs" is merely the government's way of cutting out the competition (this is exactly what more than one retired federal law enforcement agent--employed in the drug war--told me). We know the "war on terror" is nothing but an excuse to trample our constitutional liberties. We are fed up with the voracious vampires known as the Federal Reserve sucking the lifeblood out of the veins of America's hardworking Middle Class. We are tired of the CFR, CIA, and America's State Department manufacturing perpetual wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives for the benefit of the global elite. We are fed up with an arrogant and oppressive federal government that is strangling the life and freedom out of our states. We all share Joe Stack's pain!

I really wish Joe Stack had not killed himself, however. We need each other. By taking his life, he reduced our strength. The global elites delight in our demise. As we grow weaker, they grow stronger.

But the fight is not over; the battle is not lost! Rumblings of freedom's revival can be felt across the length and breadth of this nation. The clanging of liberty's resolve can be heard in hamlets and villages from Montana to South Carolina. There are still millions of us--from virtually every walk of life--who will not surrender our liberties without a fight! And we have not yet begun to fight!

So, to the rest of us Joe Stacks out there: let's not fly our planes into buildings. Let's not end our lives prematurely. Instead, get mad; get organized; get educated; start equipping your heart, mind, and body for the battle ahead. Let's fight; let's study; let's prepare; let's make every would-be tyrant on Capitol Hill and Wall Street know that we are not going to sit back and let them steal our country. Let's send a message, in no uncertain terms, that if they want our pound of flesh, they are going to have to come and get it--and if they do, it's going to cost them a whole lot more than a pound of theirs!

Oh, Joe! I wish you had not killed yourself.

Strictly Personal

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-05-01T16:46:40-06:00

By Chuck Baldwin

I will celebrate my 57th birthday this Sunday, May 3. Accordingly, it is time for my annual "Strictly Personal" column. I think it only fair that readers should have an opportunity to learn a little something about the person who writes the words they read. Today's column is designed with that goal in mind. And since Charley Reese stopped writing, I am the only syndicated columnist that does this, as far as I know. So, here goes.

I was born in a small town in northern Indiana. My father and mother were dedicated Christians. Dad was a welder by trade and a lay jailhouse preacher. The Lord delivered him from a terrible life of alcoholism, and the story of his deliverance is nothing short of miraculous.

Readers should know that I will send a cassette tape or CD of my father's life story, free of charge, to anyone who requests it. If you (or someone you know) struggle with alcohol or drug addiction, I urge you to obtain a copy of this remarkable story. Go to:

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

The Baldwins in my clan were all Southern Democrats (from Arkansas), and so I grew up a Democrat. When Ronald Reagan ran for President, however, I registered as a Republican. Of course, I am now an Independent affiliated with the Constitution Party.

I am convinced that, at the national level, the two major parties are two peas in a pod or, as Pat Buchanan calls them, "two wings of the same bird of prey." In my opinion, both parties are willfully surrendering our constitutional liberties, our independence, and our national sovereignty.

The Constitution Party web site is located at:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

In fact, I was honored to have been selected by the Constitution Party as their candidate for President last year. I was further honored to have received the public endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul during that campaign. My summary of the 2008 campaign can be viewed at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090106.html

Outside of the decision to trust Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, the decision to marry my wife, Connie, is the greatest decision I ever made. She is wonderful! We will celebrate our 36th wedding anniversary next month. She has borne me three terrific children of whom I could not be prouder.

Our oldest child, Sarah Beth, is married to Allan Baker, a structural engineer. They reside in Pensacola and have three children. Our oldest son, Christopher, owns his own plumbing construction business here in Pensacola. He and his wife, Jana, have three sons. Our youngest son, Timothy, was a felony prosecutor with the Florida State Attorney's office. Along with his wife, Jennifer, he now owns his own law firm.

Readers should also know that Tim has an excellent legal review of the Patriot Act posted on our web site. Read it at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/TimBaldwin.htm

I believe in the primacy of the local New Testament Church. I have been privileged to serve as the Senior Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, for nearly thirty-four years now. See the church web site at:

http://www.crossroadbaptist.net/

Readers should be aware that we are also live-streaming my Sunday morning messages each Sunday at approximately 10:30 a.m. Central Time. To watch these messages, go to:

http://crossroadbaptist.net/live.html

I have hosted my own radio programs for more than thirty years. In fact, this column is the outgrowth of my radio talk show, Chuck Baldwin Live. Here is the web address:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/

Currently, my radio programs are aired 49 times a week, on 15 different stations, in 5 states. The radio log is located at:

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

My personal philosophy regarding social/political issues is quite simple: I believe abortion is America's national holocaust. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human life. Furthermore, it is absolutely disgraceful that while the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire federal government (legislative, executive, and judicial) from 2001 to 2006, they did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade. All they had to do was pass Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life bill; but instead they squandered 6 years of opportunity--an opportunity that may never come again. The GOP's dereliction in this regard is unforgivable.

I believe marriage is, by definition, only between a man and a woman.

I believe the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights to be the greatest civil documents ever devised by man. I believe America's Founding Fathers to be the greatest generation of Christian philosophers and patriots to ever live.

I believe the current attempts by politicians from both parties to ignore and violate the Constitution are unconscionable and draconian attacks against the liberties of the American people and should be vehemently resisted.

I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government, Big Business, and academia to surrender America's independence and national sovereignty to a globalist New World Order. I believe the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergers are especially culpable in this regard.

I believe many, if not most, pastors today have become little more than glorified politicians; and I am very disappointed in the way today's national Christian leaders (the so-called Religious Right) seem to grovel before political parties and personalities, which appears to be for the express purpose of obtaining political and financial benefit.

I further believe that the current effort to merge the United States into a North American Community, along with the sister-issues of the NAFTA superhighway and the push to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, comprises a grave threat to America. I am also convinced that there is a bold and blatant attempt underfoot to turn the United States into a police-state-style surveillance society, in which personal freedoms are being quickly and egregiously sacrificed.

I opposed the preemptive invasion of Iraq, and I continue to oppose the occupation of that country. I believe the Barack Obama administration is doing nothing--and will do nothing--to change the perpetual war/preemptive war doctrine introduced by George W. Bush.

I opposed the bailouts for Wall Street. I oppose the Federal Reserve and believe it to be an unconstitutional, unjust, and evil system of economics that is at the heart of all of America's financial (and many of our international) woes. I wholeheartedly support the abolition of the Federal Reserve and a return to sound money.

I believe the American people have more to fear from Washington, D.C., than they do from Baghdad or Tehran. I believe the United Nations is a sinister organization from which the United States should withdraw. I believe the federal government taxes too much, spends too much, lies too much, and snoops too much into the personal lives of the American people.

Besides Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and the Constitution Party, the only organizations to which I belong are Gun Owners of America and The National Rifle Association. I especially support GOA, as it is the only Second Amendment advocacy group that refuses to compromise for the sake of political correctness.

See GOA's web site at:

http://www.gunowners.org/

In my view, the best news magazine in the country is The New American. I enthusiastically recommend that every American read it. Here is their web site:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/

I supported Ron Paul in the Republican Presidential primary last year, and I continue to support his efforts through the Campaign for Liberty. Here is their web site:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

I don't trust most of the major radio or television talk show hosts, but observe that Lou Dobbs seems to have more honesty and integrity than the rest. Consider: he was the only major network television talk show host that invited me to be a guest on his show during last year's Presidential campaign. That says a lot!

If I have any hobbies, they would be hunting and freshwater fishing, although I don't get to do either as much as I would like. I am probably what people would call a workaholic. In addition, I am a firm believer in healthy eating and exercise.

Well, there it is. That is me in a nutshell. At least now you know more about who I am. You can rest assured that everything I write will be faithful to the beliefs mentioned above.

And there is one more thing: during the month of May only, I will send a full-size color photograph of yours truly to everyone who sends a one-time financial donation of $25 or more to help me continue to produce these columns and keep this freedom effort afloat. In fact, I will send one photo for each $25 contribution. For example, if you send $50, you will receive two photos.

To see the photo that will be sent, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/CB-photo.php

The recession has hurt all of us; and it has affected the income necessary to maintain these columns as well. If you appreciate my work and want to help me continue to advance the cause of liberty and constitutional government, I could really use your help right now. You may use your Visa or MasterCard, or you may write a personal check or Money Order. Here is the link to donate:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/CB-photo.php

Remember, this offer expires on May 31, 2009.

Thank you for helping me in any way you can, and thank you for reading and passing on my columns.

Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army?

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-05-07T16:42:02-06:00

By Chuck Baldwin

Many patriotic Americans, including many retired and former military personnel, are increasingly chagrined at the direction the U.S. armed forces are taking. For one thing, there were numerous instances in the Clinton and both Bush administrations when American GIs were required to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Does anyone remember the Michael New case? How can any American GI, who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, willingly surrender himself to a foreign commander, flag, or uniform? That is a potential conflict that has caused many to question modern military service.

Another potential moral conflict in modern military service (at least for Christians) is the inter-sex training and quartering that is now required in every branch of military service (except the Marine Corps). To put healthy young adults of the opposite sex in such close and, many times, compromising environments is more than problematic for those wishing to stay morally pure. (Christian parents should know that many state colleges and universities now require students to live in coed dorms, including using coed bathrooms and showers.) Add to this President Barack Obama's determination to expunge the Department of Defense's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, thereby allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military. All of the above has many Christians questioning the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to today's U.S. military.

Another disconcerting element of modern military service is the reality that today's American military is more and more being used as the tool of globalists to forge an international New World Order. For instance, both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations will send U.S. military personnel (including the National Guard) to guard the borders of foreign countries, but never ask them to protect our own borders. Sending the National Guard overseas, especially, strains the principles of constitutional government. But maybe that explains why we have so many foreign troops on U.S. soil. After all, did President George W. Bush not ask foreign troops to monitor our borders and skies in the weeks and months following the attacks on 9/11?

Using U.S. troops as international "peacekeepers" only serves the interests of the international New World Order; it has nothing to do with protecting the lives and property of the American people. In fact, an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States. Accordingly, many Christian parents are hesitant to give their children to modern military service.

If all of the above is not enough, we read this story from Reuters and One News Now: "The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

"Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty--including those based in places like Afghanistan--from trying to convert people to another religion.

"Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source: OneNewsNow.com, 5/5/09)

For any Christian, this episode highlights a very serious conflict of duty. Any genuine Christian must take his Lord's command to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" very seriously. In fact, how can any Christian not witness to others--whoever they are--of Christ's redeeming grace? To refuse to do so amounts to willful rejection of Christ, in which case, it is doubtful that genuine salvation is even present.

Therefore, how can a Christian dutifully obey his Savior and Lord on the one hand, while, at the same time, obeying a military order forbidding him or her from "trying to convert people"? And how could any genuine Christian chaplain willingly confiscate and DESTROY God's Holy Word? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe even Adolf Hitler burned Bibles. He burned a lot of books, but I've never read that he burned God's Word.

Now, no one has more respect and admiration for military personnel than I do. My dad and his two brothers proudly served their country in World War II. One brother served in the U.S. Marines and was wounded in the Pacific. The other served in the Navy, and Dad was selected to work on the Atomic Bomb. I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Gulf War I, and some of my closest friends are former, retired, or active-duty military.

I feel the same way about law enforcement personnel. In my youth, law enforcement was my chosen career. Some of my dearest friends are either retired or active-duty law enforcement officers. It is a noble profession.

We have to be honest enough to admit, however, that both the U.S. military and many of our law enforcement agencies are being co-opted by a politically correct leadership that is in the process of changing the rules of conduct--not to mention the rules of engagement.

Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home.

When we have federal police agents, with no justification or authority, brutally beating an innocent pastor; when FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights; when U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders; when U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen; when military chaplains are ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles; and when soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith; then it is apparent that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better.

It is for good reason that many Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) are looking twice at modern military service. In fact, a retired high-ranking military officer (whose name I will not divulge) recently told me, "Chuck, there is no way I could recommend that anyone volunteer in the U.S. military today."

Obviously, we have a host of honorable men and women of sound character and conviction still serving in both the U.S. military and in various law enforcement agencies. Thank God!

It is also obvious, however, that the powers that be are quickly "remaking" (to use Barack Obama's word) our military and law enforcement agencies into an image never desired or designed by America's Founding Fathers. Thus, the conflict between good men and bad policies will only worsen. And many will continue to question the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to modern military service.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that it is at such a time as this that good men are all the more needed in the U.S. military and in law enforcement. That is a very valid argument, by the way: as long as those good men realize what they will be required to risk when their superiors order them to surrender allegiance to the Constitution or to sacred principle. But then again, we are all required to share in that risk, are we not?

It Is Getting Very Serious Now

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-05-12T16:40:03-06:00

By Chuck Baldwin

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'"

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

The U.S. Government Has Become Patently Anti-Christian

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-05-19T16:37:35-06:00

By Chuck Baldwin

From the writings of Columbus to the Mayflower Compact, to the Declaration of Independence, America's founders clearly and articulately enshrined bedrock Christian principles in the foundation of this country.

For example, in explaining the purpose of his journey that led to the discovery of the new world, Christopher Columbus said, "It was the Lord who put into my mind--I could feel His hand upon me--the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies . . . All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me . . . There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . . For the execution of the journey to the Indies I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied . . . No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His Holy service . . . the fact that the Gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time--this is what convinces me." (Source: Columbus' Book of Prophecies)

Our pilgrim fathers wrote in the Mayflower Compact, "In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten . . . Having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith . . . a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia."

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson invokes our Creator-God no less than four times. In fact, Jefferson predicates the Declaration on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and concludes the Declaration with an appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions" and with "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

Attorney and author, John Whitehead, in his book, The Separation Illusion, rightly noted, "In 1892, the United States Supreme Court made an exhaustive study of the supposed connection between Christianity and the government of the United States. After reviewing hundreds of volumes of historical documents, the Court asserted, 'These references . . . add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a religious people . . . a Christian nation.' Likewise, in 1931, Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland reviewed the 1892 decision in reference to another case and reiterated that Americans are a 'Christian people.' And in 1952, Justice William O. Douglas affirmed that 'we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'"

Accordingly, our U. S. Constitution is dated: (1) from the birth of Christ, and (2) from the birth of our independence (Article. VII.). Secondly, the Constitution requires the President and Congress to respect "the Christian Sabbath" (Sunday) as a day "excepted" from governmental business (Article. I. Section. 7.). Thirdly, the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, the federal government has no right to interfere with the free expression of religion (by individuals or States) in any shape, manner, or form. Fourthly, Article. VI. of the Constitution prohibits any religious test as a qualification for public office.

The intent of the Constitution's framers was, therefore, in the matter of religion (especially the Christian religion, whose adherents birthed America), that the federal government would maintain a healthy respect for it, and keep its hands off. For the last several years, however, instead of respecting religion--especially the Christian religion--the leaders of our federal government have increasingly demonstrated animosity, and even hostility, toward both the Christian faith and Christian people.

While claiming to be "tolerant" and "pluralistic," our federal government, in practice, shows little tolerance or pluralism regarding Christianity. Time and again, Christian practices and people are singled out for humiliation, persecution, or retribution. This situation follows an eerily similar pattern to that of the old Holy Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire loved to tout its tolerance for any and all faith systems. One common adage at the time was that "there are as many gods in Rome as people." So tolerant was Rome for myriad religious beliefs that it even constructed an altar to the "UNKNOWN GOD," for fear that it may have neglected to honor someone's obscure god.

Why was it, then, that the Roman Empire took delight in publicly persecuting, torturing, and executing Christians? What happened to tolerance? What happened to pluralism? In direct contravention of its own laws and policies, Rome singled out Christianity for public repudiation. And that is exactly what the U.S. government is currently doing. I'll say it outright: the U.S. government has become patently anti-Christian.

In spite of Constitutional requirements to keep its hands off religious liberty, the U.S. government routinely singles out Christian practices for public repudiation. For years now, federal judges have demanded that local schools (under the jurisdiction of local and state governments) prohibit prayers or Bible reading.

Does anyone find it a little interesting that all over America, while Christian students are denied the right to pray or read the Bible in public schools, Muslim students are not only allowed to pray in public schools, but are also often provided special prayer rooms within the schools so that those students may leave their classrooms and pray? In fact, in some school districts, if the Muslim prayer time interferes with a student's tests, the student is many times free to make up the test in order that he or she may be faithful to the prayer meeting. Of course, the reading of the Koran is also included in the Muslim's prayer time. All of this is done with the full knowledge and blessing of the U.S. government (and the ACLU, by the way), including the myriad federal courts--courts that are always "fast on the draw" to squash any and all attempts by Christians to pray or read their Bibles in public schools.

And it is not just the Muslim religion that meets with the approval of the U.S. government. Federal courts find no fault in public school students observing Kwanzaa, celebrating the pagan holiday of Halloween, or engaging in various eastern religious practices such as Hindu meditation. At least one school district in Utah has allowed Tibetan monks to conduct Tantric Buddhist devotionals in its public schools. At least two schools in California have even introduced New Age curricula honoring Lucifer to their students. Basically, any and all religious beliefs are condoned and tolerated by the U.S. government--every belief system except Christianity, that is.

In addition, how many local or State courts have been ordered by federal judges to remove any and all copies of the Ten Commandments or other scriptural references from their buildings? How many local governments have been ordered by federal judges to remove any and all Nativity or Manger scenes from their properties? How many chaplains have been ordered to remove Bibles from soldiers, sailors, or Marines? How many Bibles have been destroyed by orders from military commanders? How many prisoners or detainees have been denied Bibles (even when requested) by order of military brass? How many military officers have been overlooked for promotion (and thus drubbed out of military service) for not being willing to surrender their Christian convictions to "sensitivity" or "diversity" training (a euphemism for homosexual brainwashing)? How many times has the U.S. government quietly looked the other way when Christian people have been slaughtered en masse? (Can anyone say, "Sudan"?) How many Christian chaplains in the armed forces have been ordered to not pray in Jesus' name? How many pro-life Christians have been targeted by federal police agencies for special scrutiny? How many sheriffs' offices (run and managed by Christian law enforcement officers) have been denied federal funds for not submitting to a variety of repulsive policies mandated by the federal government?

Then there is this AP story: "Iraq has lost more than half the Christians who once called it home, mostly since the war began, and few who fled have plans to return." The report continued, saying, "The number of Arab Christians has plummeted across the Mideast in recent years as increasing numbers seek to move to the West, saying they feel increasingly unwelcome in the Middle East and want a better life abroad.

"But the exodus has been particularly stark in Iraq--where sectarian violence since the U.S.-led 2003 invasion has often targeted Christians.

"The AP found that hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled." (Source: The Associated Press, Thursday, May 14, 2009)

To highlight the AP report, in 1987, there were 1.4 million Christians in Iraq. Now there are fewer than 400,000. For all of Saddam Hussein's sins, persecution of Christians was not one of them. Under Hussein's regime, Christians, for the most part, led a persecution-free existence--something extremely rare in Muslim countries. In fact, Saddam Hussein even had Christians serving in his administrative cabinet.

Enter the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Since removing Saddam Hussein, the U.S. government has installed an Islamic puppet government, which has resulted in the persecution of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians.

I hope all the evangelical Christians who continue to support George W. Bush and his unconstitutional, preemptive invasion of Iraq are paying attention. I hope all my Christian friends who kept trumpeting the unconstitutional policies of President Bush, "because he is a Christian," are paying attention. I really wish that James Dobson and his ilk would have been as outraged at the unconstitutional (not to mention unchristian) policies of the former Republican President as they are the current Democratic President, because, for all intents and purposes, the federal government is functioning in exactly the same way under one as it did under the other.

Whether domestically or internationally, the U.S. government is obviously committed to an anti-Christian agenda. Where the federal government once respected Christianity and vowed to not interfere with the faith and practices of Christian people, it has now become an archenemy of religious liberty. With virtually every constitutional safeguard being violated by the modern federal government, about all that is left is for the constitutional prohibition of government business being conducted on Sundays to be expunged. Don't be surprised, therefore, when federal courts begin mandating that public schools require students to attend class on the Lord's Day.

If we are to restore the principles of religious liberty, it will be necessary for State governments--and for Christian people in particular--to stand united against an ever-growing, ever-menacing federal leviathan that is intent on destroying the safeguards and foundations of a once-proud constitutional republic, which was, after all, rooted and founded upon Christian principles.

A Very Real New World Order

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-01-27T01:00:00-07:00

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.
This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an "international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.
Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commision and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.
This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might."

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

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

Add this podcast to my Email...

More on the New World Order

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-01-30T01:00:00-07:00

By Chuck Baldwin
January 30, 2009

In my last column, I attempted to wake up my fellow Americans, who are either currently slumbering through the collapse of our constitutional republic or in a protracted state of denial regarding a very real--and very dangerous--burgeoning New World Order. The information that I need to disseminate on this matter is so plentiful that it is extremely difficult to condense into one column. Therefore, I must at least attempt to provide a little more information on this subject. I will use this column to do just that.

I already quoted former President George Herbert Walker Bush in my previous column. Here are more of his quotes. In 1991, Bush, Sr. said, "My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function." In 1992, he said, "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

Wow! I thought U.S. Presidents, as well as all civil magistrates and military personnel, swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not in Bush's mind, obviously.

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

On January 25, 1993, Warren Christopher, the new Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, told CNN: "We must get the New World Order on track and bring the U.N. into its correct role in regards to the United States."

In 1958, Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent (a man I was fortunate enough to get to know before his death), wrote a book entitled "The Naked Communist." In it, he outlined the long-term communist agenda. Since then, the movers and shakers of the New World Order have successfully achieved many of these goals within the U.S. Here are some samples of those goals:

* Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
* Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
* Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
* Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
* Get control of the schools.
* Infiltrate the press.
* Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
* Break down cultural standards of morality.
* Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion.
* Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Is there anyone who cannot see that the purveyors of the New World Order have largely achieved most of their goals? All they need to do now is tie it all together under one governmental umbrella.

One of the organizations that is at the forefront of promoting the New World Order is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In my last column, I showed how the CFR dominates the Presidencies of both Republican and Democratic administrations (including the current one), as well as the Federal Reserve. I would even go so far as to say that the CFR is a very "clear and present danger" to the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

For example, CFR member and UN spokesman, Walt Rostow, said, "It is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood."

The American people need to wake up to the fact that the international banking interests that dominate our political and financial entities are working tirelessly to "see an end to nationhood." I am talking about the Rothschilds and Warburgs of Europe, and the houses of J.P. Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, Lehman, and Rockefeller.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common--they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

Admiral Ward also said, "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."

Remember, the CFR was incorporated in 1921 and is currently comprised of only about 4,000 members. The CFR was co-founded by Edward Mandell House and John D. Rockefeller. Colonel (an honorary title--he was not a military colonel) House had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Historians often call House "Wilson's alter ego" due to the powerful influence he held over the President. House was a rabid Marxist, whose goal was to socialize the United States. In his book, "Philip Dru: Administrator," House said he was working for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

House's stated goals were to incorporate a gradual income tax upon the backs of the American people for the purpose of establishing a state-controlled central bank. Both of these goals were accomplished in 1913, the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson administration.

House's blueprint became the foundation for the CFR. What was not accomplished by the proposed League of Nations at the end of World War I was realized with the formation of the United Nations at the end of World War II. Not by accident, much of the original funding for the CFR came from Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave CFR members much authority in his administration, and they have pretty much dominated the foreign and financial policies of the United States ever since.

In the April, 1974 edition of the CFR publication, "Foreign Affairs," Columbia University Professor and CFR member Richard Gardner wrote a column entitled, "The Hard Road to World Order." In it, he called for "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." He named the following organizations that would help fulfill that objective: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Law of the Sea Conference, the World Food Conference, the World Population Conference, and of course, the United Nations. I would also include NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), CAFTA, etc.

The CFR has a sister organization called the Trilateral Commission (TC). This group was co-founded by the Marxist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller. Like Gardner, Brzezinski calls for a piecemeal "movement toward a larger community of the developed nations . . . through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty." (Source: Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, p. 296)

Brzezinski is also a major proponent (along with CFR member Robert Pastor) of the North American Community (or Union), whose construction began during the second term of President George W. Bush and continues today under President Barack Obama.

Here is a sample list of the notable dignitaries in and out of government who hold (or held) membership in the CFR or TC (and sometimes both):

George Herbert Walker Bush. Bill Clinton. Sandra Day O'Connor. Dick Cheney. Les Aspin. Colin Powell. Robert Gates. Brent Scowcroft. Jesse Jackson, Sr. Mario Cuomo. Dan Rather. Tom Brokaw. David Brinkley. John Chancellor. Marvin Kalb. Diane Sawyer. Barbara Walters. Cyrus Vance. Paul Volcker. Henry Kissinger. George Schultz. Alan Greenspan. Madeleine Albright. Roger Altman. Bruce Babbitt. Howard Baker. Samuel Berger. Elaine Chao. Dianne Feinstein. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chuck Hagel. Gary Hart. John McCain. George Mitchell. Bill Moyers. Jay Rockefeller. Donna Shalala. Strobe Talbott. Fred Thompson. Robert Zoellick. Richard Nixon. Hubert H. Humphrey. George McGovern. Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter. John Anderson. Walter Mondale. Michael Dukakis. Al Gore. John Kerry.

It is absolutely essential that we stop looking at potential leaders as either Democrats or Republicans, or as conservatives or liberals. Those monikers mean very little today. We must start identifying people as either Americans or globalists. Either they believe in an independent, sovereign, self-governing United States of America, or they believe in supranational government and internationalism. Either they believe in devotion to the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, or they believe in the goals and objectives of the United Nations. We must rid ourselves of the propensity to support those who classify themselves as "conservatives," and we must stop blindly supporting the GOP "because it is a 'conservative' party." If they do not understand AND OPPOSE the New World Order, they do not deserve our support or our vote!

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for everything that Barack Obama is doing to facilite the New World Order. That two of these Presidents are Democrats and two are Republicans only proves my point: both the Democratic and Republican parties have succumbed to New World Order ideology.

There is more that we can do, of course, but I will save the bulk of that discussion for another day. In the meantime, we need to realize that the New World Order exists, to understand that both major parties are collaborating to facilitate its creation, to start looking at leaders as either Americans or globalists, and to refuse to support the latter in any shape, manner, or form.

Pastors need to start warning their people about the New World Order (and the Biblical principles relating to it) from their pulpits--loud and often! People need to start warning their family members and friends. We need to start searching out like-minded patriots--who understand what's going on--for information and encouragement. And remember this: WE CAN DEFEAT THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Yes, we can!

The fatalistic view that we are helpless is a bunch of baloney! Our forefathers defeated the New World Order in their day. The globalists have been stymied many times through the years. The fact that they have not yet totally achieved their globalistic objectives shows us that it is possible to stop them, or at the very least, set their agenda backward.

I also urge my Christian brothers and sisters to rid themselves of the propensity to say, "This is God's will; there is nothing we can do about it." That, too, is hooey!

Christians are to be the "salt of the earth." Salt is a preservative, a retardant against decay. We are instructed to be faithful "unto death." In Romans chapter 3, the Apostle Paul made it clear that we must never support evil that good may come. I would remind my brethren that refusing to resist evil is the same as supporting it. Sitting back complacently and saying, "This must happen so Jesus can come," borders on blasphemy. It runs counter to everything the Bible teaches. We Christians have a duty, an obligation to do right with no regard to outcome or consequences.

When asked when He would establish His Kingdom on the earth, the first thing out of Jesus' mouth was, "It is not for you to know." Yet, many Christians presume to know the times and seasons of Christ's return. But let's be honest with ourselves and admit that we do NOT know. To sit back and say that we have full understanding of Bible prophecy and can say for certain what God does or does not want to accomplish in and through our country is the height of arrogance and pride. Only God knows those things. It's time we let God be God and start doing what is ours to do.

What we do know is any attempt at establishing global government is as wicked now as it was at the Tower of Babel. As Christians, we are instructed to resist the wicked one. We must oppose him and his work. We are told to "occupy" until Christ returns, whenever that is. To "occupy" means to "take care of business." God expects us to follow His teaching and do what is ours to do. To use Christ's coming as an excuse to not "take care of business" is itself inexcusable!

As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." If we would truly do our duty, who knows what God would do to help us defeat (for the sake of our children and grandchildren) this devilish New World Order?

As for me and my house, we will fight for a free, independent and sovereign United States--so that we might walk, work, and worship in freedom--as long as we have breath in our being. How about you?

P.S. Several readers informed me that Michael Savage began acknowledging the New World Order on his radio show last year. Some said he has even spoken against it. This is good news. If only the rest of the so-called "conservative" talking heads would do the same thing--but in a more aggressive fashion: you know, like America's freedom depended on it, because it does.

P.P.S. Dennis Cuddy wrote a good chronological history of the New World Order, which covers its progression through the twentieth century. It can be viewed here.

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

Add this podcast to my Email...

Christians Use Prophecy To Excuse Laziness

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-02-03T01:00:00-07:00

By Chuck Baldwin
February 3, 2009

In response to my two previous columns regarding the current development of a devilish New World Order, many professing Christians wrote me with comments to the effect that we should not be concerned about whatever global tyranny may be developing, because "it's all a part of God's plan," or "Jesus is coming soon," and similar statements. I, too, believe in the imminent return of Jesus Christ to earth. But, then again, so did Christians from every generation over the last two millennia. In fact, the Apostle Paul was looking for the return of Christ while he lived (Philippians 3:20). But does anticipation of Christ's Second Coming excuse personal neglect, indifference, and downright laziness? Of course not.

Had pastors and Christians of colonial America believed and acted as most Christians believe and act today, this country would still be a Crown colony and we would never have known the freedoms and liberties that our forebears bequeathed to us. Christians of that era, however, believed that it was their duty and obligation to fight for right and do everything within their power to resist tyranny. They also believed that God would honor and bless their efforts, which He certainly did!

It is extremely difficult for me to reconcile the apathy and slave-like mentality that seems to permeate modern Christendom (in America) with both our own heritage and the very Word of God. For example, the Apostle Paul is very clear when he writes that a Christian must never "do evil, that good may come" (Romans 3:8). Yet, that is exactly what many, if not most, Christians are doing today.

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

When confronted with an obvious evil (a burgeoning tyrannical New World Order, not to mention a number of lesser evils), modern Christians will shrug and glibly say, "It's God's will; we must not oppose it," or words to that effect. This attitude says, "I will tolerate or even condone evil in order to hasten Christ's return."

In the first place, no one knows when Christ will return, no matter how many books or tapes they have produced to say they do. In Acts chapter 1, Jesus was asked by His disciples if He would, at that time, set up His kingdom. The first words out of His mouth were, "It is not for you to know." Oh, we can speculate, surmise, and make educated guesses, but that's the best we can do. It's time we were honest enough to admit it: only God knows when Christ will return. In fact, Jesus said, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Matthew 24:36).

In the meantime, millions of Christians across America are trying to play God. They talk as if they know when Christ will come. It's actually worse than that. They have the attitude that they have no personal responsibility to defend freedom and resist despotism. They seem to look at God as some kind of glorified fireman, who is obligated to rush in at the last minute to rescue them from a burning fire--a fire that they helped ignite, or at least, refused to put out themselves when they had the opportunity to do so. It's the old, "God would not let that happen in America" syndrome.

How arrogant can we be? Ask believers from despotic regimes around the world what they think about God letting tribulation come, and they will quickly tell you, "We are already in tribulation." Are Christians in the United States really that arrogant as to believe that God loves them more than He loves believers in other countries? If not, can we not see that if believers around the world have suffered (and still suffer) the heavy hand of tyranny and oppression, it is certainly possible for tyranny and oppression to come to our land? The fact is, the only reason that Christians in America have not (for the most part) suffered tyranny and oppression is because of the hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers. We are simply enjoying the fruit of their labor.

In the second place, how do we know what God would do, if we only had the backbone to do our duty? How do we know that God would not give America "a new birth of freedom" for our children and grandchildren, if we only had the courage and fortitude to oppose the evil being thrust upon us by these would-be tyrants? America is only the "land of the free," because it was the "home of the brave." Take away the latter and we lose the former. And that is exactly what is currently happening.

In the third place, Christians have a moral imperative to resist evil, even if their efforts are fruitless. We are not responsible for outcome, only effort. Believers throughout history acted on principle, leaving the results with God. (Read Hebrews chapter 11.) Some were delivered; some were not. That did not matter. What mattered was doing one's duty. We Christians are to give our bodies as "a living sacrifice" (Romans 12:1). It is God's prerogative to use our sacrifice as He sees fit. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "losing effort," when it comes to doing right. Doing right (resisting evil) is its own reward. The three Hebrew children were not commended because God delivered them from the burning fiery furnace; they were commended because they were willing to go into the burning fiery furnace. So must we be.

I believe the real reason why so many professing Christians are so apathetic and indifferent to what is happening has nothing to do with the teachings of Scripture, Bible doctrine, eschatology, or anything of the like. It has everything to do with old-fashioned laziness. Today's average Christian just flat does not want to be bothered. He has a comfortable house, an easy chair, television, and a set of golf clubs in the closet. He takes two or three weeks' vacation every year, goes to church on Sunday (a church that does not intrude on his comfort zone, of course), pays taxes, and votes for his favorite "pro-life" Republican candidate every two years, and assumes that he is a "good" Christian and "patriotic" American. He is neither!

A real Christian patriot would never allow his country to be taken over by a gaggle of elitist goons bent on stealing his liberties--including his religious liberties--without doing everything in his power to prevent it. A real Christian patriot is active, alert, engaged, zealous, and committed to preserving liberty.

What if Jesus doesn't come for another 100 years? Another 200 years? What are we going to say to our grandchildren when they ask us what we were doing when our freedoms and liberties were being stolen? What will we say to our Christian forebears when we meet them in eternity? They sacrificed everything so that we could live in peace and freedom. What will we say to them? What will we say to God, who handed this land of liberty to us on a silver (albeit blood-soaked) platter?

Tell me again that "there is nothing we can do about it," or "it's God's will," or "Jesus is coming soon." Better yet, tell it again to the suffering Christians around the world; tell it again to our Christian forebears; tell it again to your children and grandchildren who are going to inherit a land of tyranny and oppression, all because you were too lazy to resist.

I know unbelievers who have more character and determination about preserving liberty than many who call themselves Christians. And I have a ton more respect for them, too. Our Lord told us, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Yes, Christians in America have been given the best of both worlds, and many do not even appreciate it enough to see to it that their own children--their own flesh and blood--will live to enjoy the same blessings. They are pathetic!

So, the next time you hear some piety-draped Christian talking about how he won't engage the enemy and fight for liberty, because of prophecy, or some other spiritually-sounding platitude, just remember, it has nothing to do with prophecy, or anything of the sort: it has everything to do with old-fashioned laziness. My feeling toward him is the same as that of Sam Adams (a fellow Christian) toward the Tories of old: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest for freedom--go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Amen!

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

Add this podcast to my Email...

President & Congress Grovel Before The Fed

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-02-10T01:00:00-07:00

By Chuck Baldwin
February 10, 2009

According to Bloomberg News (Monday, February 9, 2009), "The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government's commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation's home mortgages.

"The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

"Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. RECIPIENTS' NAMES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. [Emphasis added]

"'We've seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,' Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. 'Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?'"

Senator Dorgan is exactly right. No one oversees the Fed. The Fed is held accountable to absolutely nobody. But Senator Dorgan (as with everyone else in Congress) has no one to blame but himself. Ever since the Marxist, E. Mandell House, convinced President Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Congress of the United States has had virtually nothing to do with the way our fiscal policies are managed. The Fed (which is not even a government agency, but rather a private corporation consisting of mostly foreign bankers) dictates America's financial policies.

The reality of just how our civil magistrates have come to grovel before the Fed was revealed in a column written recently by Cal Thomas. Mind you, Cal was not trying to castigate President Bush in his column. Just the opposite: his column was full of praise and adulation for the former President. In recounting his last interview with President George W. Bush, however, Cal unwittingly revealed the almost limitless power that the Fed wields over even the President of the United States.

Here is what Cal wrote: "Bush defends himself against a charge by a member of the Republican National Committee that he has behaved like a 'socialist' because of his massive bailout spending. He [Bush] says he still believes in less government spending, but when Henry Paulson, secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, tell him that if he doesn't act, the result will be worse that the Great Depression, 'you can sit there and say to yourself, "well, I'm going to stick to principle and hope for the best, or I'm going to take the actions necessary to prevent the worst."'"

In other words, when the Fed says, "Jump!" the President asks, "How high?" And, with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (and maybe one or two others), the same is true for members of the House and Senate.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, America is being run by a private banking cartel, the majority of whom are not even citizens of these United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until the American people demand that their elected members of Congress live up to their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, they will continue to have their pockets picked clean by these corrupt banksters in New York City (and London) and their contemptible facilitators in Washington, D.C. Passing Dr. Paul's bill would be a great place to start.

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

Add this blog to my Email...

Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore?

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-02-06T01:00:00-07:00

By Chuck Baldwin
February 6, 2009

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

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

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

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

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

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

Jefferson went on to say that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." In other words, whenever government stops protecting liberty and starts destroying liberty, it is the right and duty of freedom-loving people to reform or replace such illegitimate government with a government that will fulfill its legitimate purpose. And that is exactly what our forefathers did in the late 1700s. Sadly, here we are in the twenty-first century, the descendents of some of the wisest and bravest men and women in history, and we do not even seem to know what freedom is, much less have the courage to defend it.

For example, we will work for 30 years or more to purchase our own property. After having done that, however, the property still does not belong to us. We are required to pay the State--for the rest of our lives--a property tax (to support concepts and ideas that many of us find reprehensible and detestable, no less), or armed agents will confiscate our property and throw us on the street. Pray tell me, what is the difference between this and the feudal system of old? In reality, none of us own any property. We are all serfs paying the feudal lord. Beyond that, our feudal masters even dictate to us what we can and cannot do with this property we supposedly own. We do not even have the right to manage and control our own land. And yet, we Americans put up with this illegitimacy and still have the audacity to say, "We are free." Again, we don't know the meaning of the word.

Virtually everything we do and say is monitored by the great Nanny State. Practically every service, every act is regulated by the State. Ask any independent business owner how many regulations, laws, acts, etc., demand fulfillment, and how many fees, taxes, permits, etc., are required by various government agencies and bureaucracies before he can perform a single task. For example, the federal government actually dictates how some restaurants can seat people or serve tables. Farmers are told what and how much to plant--and even to not plant. We cannot buy a gun, drive a car, marry the person we love, or even install a toilet without saying, "Pretty please?" to a dozen despots. And we still wave the flag every Independence Day and brag about how "free" we are. Again, we don't know the meaning of the word.

And the people who should be more "jealous over" their liberties than anyone--born-again Christians--are among the first to gladly relinquish their freedom. I know of hundreds-- perhaps thousands--of Christian College employees who happily allow the school Gestapo to barge into their homes--unannounced and uninvited--to inspect their private reading material, or CD and video collections, and even their wardrobes. School officials tell them where they must go to church, what attire their wives and children can and cannot wear in public (off the job)--AND IN PRIVATE--and what amusements they may and may not attend. I am not making it up. Adolf Hitler never had the kind of control that some of these Christian Colleges exert over their employees. And the remarkable thing is, these Christian employees would still assume that they are "free." Again, they do not know the meaning of the word.

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

Obviously, people who are receiving welfare, or other government handouts, seldom complain about there being too much government, because they personally benefit from the growth of the socialist state. This is also true for many (but not all, thank God) government employees, of course. And please remember that government cannot give a blessed thing without first stealing it from someone else. Big Government is totally incompatible with freedom. For that matter, so is Big Business and Big Religion. In fact, Big Anything is incompatible with freedom. Even Big Cities.

So, I repeat the question, Do Americans really cherish freedom anymore? And, if we do, what are we going to do about it? I believe that there are specific and constructive steps that can be taken to restore liberty in this land. (I will develop these thoughts later.) I further believe that there are still millions of Americans who really do understand and cherish freedom. We may be in a minority, but remember, we were also a minority in 1776. Freedom is laborious, onerous work. And not everyone enjoys hard work. So be it. Let lazy, indolent fools wallow in their servitude. God will yet see to it that there is a land of liberty for those who truly desire it and are willing to fight for it. I firmly believe that.

Remember, liberty is a precious gift from our Creator. For those who fear God, respect Natural Law, and love liberty, there is yet a "promised land." We may have to do a little searching; we may have to rethink our priorities; we may have to adjust our lifestyles; and yes, we may have to "pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in order to obtain it; but our forebears thought it was worth it--and so do I.

As Friedrich Schiller wrote in William Tell:

"By this fair light which greeteth us, before
Those other nations, that, beneath us far,
In noisome cities pent, draw painful breath,
Swear we the oath of our confederacy!
A band of brothers true we swear to be,
Never to part in danger or in death!

"We swear we will be free as were our sires,
And sooner die than live in slavery!

"We swear, to put our trust in God Most High,
And not to quail before the might of man!"

Such people can never be enslaved. And I believe that such people still exist in these United States of America. I count them my brothers. I offer them my arm and my heart. After all, we are freedom-loving Americans.

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

Add this podcast to my Email...

A Culture Of Surveillance

podcasts@godsipod.com — 2009-04-28T20:34:33-06:00

By Chuck Baldwin - April 28, 2009

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

According to RussiaToday.com, "The personal computer may soon be not-so-private, with the U.S. and some European nations working on laws allowing them access to search the content held on a person's hard drive.

"President Obama's administration is keeping unusually tight-lipped on the details, which is raising concerns among computer users and liberty activists."

The report also states, "In extreme secrecy from the public, the United States is hammering out an international copyright treaty with several other countries and the European Union. Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (or ACTA), governments will get sweeping new powers to search and seize material thought to be in breach of copyright. But why all the secrecy?"

Russia Today quotes Richard Stallman, prominent American software freedom activist, as saying, "Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want. I can only guess that it's going to be nasty, because if it weren't going to be nasty, they wouldn't need to keep it a secret."

The report also said, "Up until now, the breach of copyright has been a civil matter. The Obama administration seems to now want to criminalize it."

The report continued saying, "Some say modern America is being overtaken by a culture of surveillance."
A culture of surveillance indeed. What began in earnest under former President George W. Bush is now sharply escalating under President Barack Obama.

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

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

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

The report goes on to say, "This new legislation seeks to give even more power to the government to regulate the Internet and, in future, the possibility to regulate content and usage. What begins as a method of defeating terrorism and protecting telecommunications, can quickly become a method to regulate 'hate speech' to assign 'motive' or 'intent' to harm and even to regulate and legislate the flow of information that is deemed by the 'thought police' to be inflammatory or counter-productive to their cause."

The report says that the new cybersecurity legislation can be a "framework for future, more invasive legislation. It is a first step to the loss of internet privacy, free speech and the free flow of information."
So, once again, the passing of a Republican Presidential administration and the advent of a Democratic Presidential administration have resulted in zero change in the overall direction of the ship of state. In the name of "national security," the federal government of this country continues to deepen its commitment to what can only be described as a police-state mentality. And, once again, the national news media in America chooses to ignore the story, and by so doing, shows willful compliance with this disturbing phenomenon.

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

I wonder how many Obama supporters are paying attention?

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

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

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

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

Just last week, an Associated Press report stated, "The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
"The administration's action--and several others--have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign."

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

Discipleship Resources at Whatever You Can Afford prices. DiscipleStuff.com

God's iPod is Free, thanks to our monthly supporters.
Create a small monthly donation here.

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

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

The Russia Today report is right: we do have a culture of surveillance. We also have a culture of cowardice by people from both sides of the political aisle who, in the name of partisan politics, are willfully accommodating and facilitating the demise of this constitutional republic.

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

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

Add this blog to my Email...