By Chuck Baldwin
February 9, 2012

Writing for World Net Daily, Bob Unruh reports a refreshing story of how individual sovereign states are beginning to push back against federal overreach. Unruh writes, “State and local officials in surging numbers are telling Washington they simply won’t cooperate with any plans to detain Americans the federal government may choose to describe as ‘belligerents.’

“The issue centers on provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, signed by President Obama, for the indefinite and rights-free detention of those Washington cites as belligerents, whether American citizens or not.

“WND reported when Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. immediately drafted a resolution in the Rhode Island legislature to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA ‘that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.’

“Now the Tenth Amendment Center confirms that the resistance to the federal bureaucracy is catching on.”

Unruh continues, “‘Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say as many as 10 states will consider legislation or resolutions in response to the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA,’ the organization is reporting. ‘Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Washington will likely introduce resolutions authored by the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition within the next week. Additionally, local governments, including Fremont County, Colo. and El Paso County, Colo., have passed resolution condemning the detention provisions.’

“Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin commented that ‘federal politicians never seem to repeal federal law.

“‘It’s going to take “We the People” in our states to stand up and say, “No!” to this unconstitutional monster,’ he said.”

Unruh goes on to report, “Already, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, has introduced HB 1160, which would prevent ‘any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.’”

“Mike Maharrey, communications director for the TAC, said the fight is shaping up like the conflict in the 1850s when northern states refused to cooperated with fugitive slave laws that required them to capture and return escaping slaves.

“‘It is clear to me, and I am far from alone in this view, that the detention provisions in the NDAA are vague, overbroad and open to interpretation,’ he said. ‘That leaves me to trust in the good character and moral clarity of Barack Obama, Rick Santorum or whoever happens to reside at the White House, to protect me and my fellow Americans from abuse of his power. No thanks.’

“Maharrey noted that during the latter days of slavery, ‘state and local governments in northern states stepped in and thwarted the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Acts, which allowed the federal government to arrest and detain black people, and send them back into slavery with little or no due process.

“‘We laud these men and women as heroes,’ he said. ‘I have no doubt that history will prove equally kind to those standing up for the most basic rights of Americans today.’”

See Bob Unruh’s report at:

http://www.wnd.com:80/2012/02/states-prepare-brakes-on-citizen-detention-option/

As I have said repeatedly in this column, the only hope for the preservation of liberty and freedom in America is for individual sovereign states to do what they were created to do: protect the rights and liberties of the citizens of their states from the overreach and despotic propensities of those miscreants in Washington, D.C. If freedom-loving people in the body politic truly intend to see to it that their rights and liberties are preserved, they will pay much more attention–and be much more attuned–to electing State governors, legislators, attorney generals, etc., than they are electing US congressmen, senators, and even electing the President.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is not a major party Presidential candidate who will make a dime’s worth of difference in protecting the liberties and freedoms of the American citizenry. Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., are all about empire-building, foreign interventionism, and expanding the Welfare and Warfare states. Furthermore, none of them (with the exception of Ron Paul) would do anything to thwart or reverse the burgeoning police state that is currently being rapidly constructed in this country. That means, as Michael Boldin said, “It’s going to take ‘We the People’ in our states to stand up and say, ‘No!’”

And quite frankly, that’s about the only thing that the power-elite in Washington, D.C., are worried about. They aren’t worried about Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. Those are all orchestrated conflicts to keep our troops fighting endless wars, to have an excuse to print more and more fiat currency, to satisfy the international bankers who are making trillions of dollars off the military-industrial complex, and to give them an excuse of “national security” in order to strip away more and more freedoms from the American citizenry. But State governors, legislators, and attorney generals who actually believe the Constitution and who have the courage to defend it, now THAT scares them to death! Why? Because they know that the real power in this country rests with “We the People” who, through their state governments, have the ability to actually stop their quest for globalism and feudalism.

America’s Founding Fathers clearly understood that the states are the ultimate guardians of the peoples’ liberties. James Madison (and even Alexander Hamilton) spoke to this eloquently in the Federalist Papers.

In Federalist #46, Madison said, “Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the [states] would still have the advantage in the means of DEFEATING SUCH ENCROACHMENTS” (emphasis added). By “defeating such encroachments,” Madison included “opposition,” “refusal to cooperate,” “frowns of the [State] executive,” “obstructions,” and “plans of resistance.”

Did you see that? America’s fourth President and Father of the Constitution said that it was the duty of the states to obstruct, oppose, resist, and otherwise refuse to cooperate with any federal policy or mandate that runs counter to the principles of liberty. And, remember, this is from the man who authored the so-called “supremacy clause” of the US Constitution!

In Federalist #45, Madison said, “Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.”

Did you get that? In the mind of America’s founders, the federal government would be dependent upon the State governments, not the other way around! But what do we hear today? Even these so-called “conservative” politicos and talking heads say just the opposite. They keep insisting that the states are dependent upon, and subservient to, the federal government.

Even the colonists’ biggest proponent of central government, Alexander Hamilton, had it right on the power of the states to resist federal encroachment. In Federalist #26, Hamilton said, “Independent of … the national legislature itself … the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, if necessary, the arm of their discontent.”

Wow! Did you catch that? Hamilton said that the states held the right and duty to resist federal encroachment with their “voice” and with their “arm.”

Does any of this sound like America’s Founding Fathers expected the states to be lap dogs for federal usurpation of power? They fully recognized that it would take the individual states standing against any potential federal overreach to protect and secure the rights and liberties of the American people.

I will say it again: it is far more important who is elected as your governor than who is elected President. It is far more important who is elected as your State attorney general than who is appointed US attorney general. It is far more important who is elected to your State legislature than who is elected to the US House and Senate. It is far more important who is elected as your sheriff than who is appointed as the Director of the FBI. But if all you watch is FOX News, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, you will be mesmerized with national politics, and you will forget about that which is the most important defender of our liberties: our individual state governments. In fact, in many cases today, our State and local governments are as abusive of our liberties as is the federal government. This is mainly due to the inattention and misunderstanding of the People as to the importance of electing local and State leaders who will accept, as their first responsibility, the maintenance of liberty for the people they represent. And by nature, that means being a faithful watchdog to the incursions of the federal government against our freedoms.

It is encouraging to read that at least ten states are pushing back against the monstrously unconstitutional NDAA. If all fifty states would act as courageously as these tenacious ten–and not just against the NDAA, but also against EVERY assault of the federal government against our liberties–America could be restored to the “land of the free” very quickly. As it is, however, the protectors and guardians of our liberties (our State leaders and county sheriffs) are being bribed, coerced, cajoled, harangued, and intimidated into cowardly submission by these belligerent bullies in Washington, D.C.

Thank you Representative Daniel P. Gordon, Jr. of Rhode Island. Thank you Delegate Bob Marshall of Virginia. Thank you to all of you State legislators, State senators, and county sheriffs across our great land who truly understand the oath you took to the Constitution and who are willing to stand as the watchdogs of our liberties. It is a truism that if your tribe does not increase, our freedoms are surely lost.

P.S. Attention to any professional barber who is a like-minded patriot and who wants to relocate to, or currently resides in or near, the Flathead Valley of Montana. There is a job opportunity for a reliable, professional barber in an established shop located in a newly revitalized business area. This shop’s services include shaves, all style cuts, perms, and colors. References will be checked. This owner is a personal friend of mine and a real patriot. He wants to hire a fellow patriot in his shop. If you qualify and are interested, call Mike at Artistic Barbering, 236 2nd Ave. W., Kalispell, MT 59901, 406-755-1353.

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4471

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
February 2, 2012

We’ve all heard about how Christians were thrown to the lions during the reign of the Caesars. But it is very doubtful that Christians were feeding one another to the lions. Alas, it appears that should this kind of Christian persecution become vogue in America, many Christians would doubtless join with these modern-day Caesars and gladly feed their own to the lions.

How did it happen? How did Christians lose their love? Of course, our Lord predicted that the day would come when “the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matthew 24:12)  Sadly, this truism also obviously applies to many of us calling ourselves Christians. But how did it happen? How did Christians lose their love for souls? How did they lose their love for the Brotherhood? How did they lose their love for truth? How did they lose their love for peace? How did they lose their love for liberty? How did it happen?

I sat aghast as I watched the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina and listened to hundreds of the GOP faithful (which included a great number of Christians) boo Congressman Ron Paul when he injected the Golden Rule into the discussion of America’s foreign policy. To say I was stunned is the understatement of the year! Christians booing a Presidential candidate (who, himself, is a Christian) for suggesting that our country practices the Golden Rule? Egad! What’s next? Christians cheering when people are thrown to the lions? I confess that I am flummoxed beyond words to describe!

I was raised in a Christian home by Christian parents who never missed Sunday School or church. My dad saw to it that I began memorizing scripture before I started kindergarten. I have heard the great Bible stories taught and re-taught. And while Christians have always differed on the nuances of particular Bible doctrines, the fundamental principles of God’s Word were universally taught and accepted.

Universally, Christians believed and taught, “God is love.” We understood the virtue and necessity of loving God and our fellow man–especially our brothers and sisters in Christ. Universally, we accepted the primacy of the Golden Rule, which states, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

So, what has happened? How is it that the people who cheer the loudest for ever-burgeoning wars of aggression overseas are Christians? How is it that Christians will be the first ones to boisterously sing the chorus with John McCain, “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran”? How is it that it doesn’t seem to cross their minds at all that the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children were killed, wounded, and maimed by our government in a needless and unconstitutional war of aggression? How is it that the US government can wantonly wage war with an almost unlimited number of nations–killing and maiming thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process–and Christians cheer? Some even join with the likes of Madeleine Albright and pompously spout: it is “acceptable collateral damage.” How did this happen?

So deep is our blood-lust that when a Republican Presidential candidate (Ron Paul), who is the only military veteran in the entire GOP Presidential field, by the way, introduces the Golden Rule into a political debate, he is booed and jeered… by Christians!  What in God’s name has happened to us?

Watch and listen to Christians booing Ron Paul’s suggestion that America practice the Golden Rule at:

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=e-US_dF58Rw

Is war sometimes justified? Yes! Do 2000 years of Western Civilization and even all of Biblical history recognize the right of men to protect and defend themselves, their families, their communities, and their country? Yes! Christians on the whole have never been pacifists. A few have been, but they have always been the exception to the rule. In the strict definition, the Lord Jesus Christ was not a pacifist. He proved that when he removed by force those money-changers from the Temple.  In the South Carolina debate, was Ron Paul suggesting that America not protect and defend itself? Absolutely not! Dr. Paul proudly supported Ronald Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength” initiatives. He simply asked, should not our dealings with foreign countries reflect the principles of peace and goodwill as exemplified and taught by our Savior? And for that, Christians jeer and boo him?

I believe there are a couple of mitigating factors in this propensity of today’s Christians to relish in blood-lust. First, many Christians have lost respect for their own character. When men give in to hatred, bitterness, jealousy, resentment, etc., they do more damage to their own soul than to anyone else’s. Our Lord said that if we hated our brother we murdered him (in our hearts). So, what do we commonly see in our churches today? Envy, bitterness, resentment, gossip, rancor, and hatred! Rightly does the scripture state, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (I John 4:20)

If we Christians take delight in “murdering” our “friends” and fellow believers through our bitterness, envy, and hatred, why should we lose any sleep over the deaths of thousands of unknown people who live halfway around the world? And nevermind that many of these innocent victims are also our brothers and sisters in the Lord! For example, most Christians in the United States refuse to even acknowledge the fact that there is far more state persecution against our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq since the US-backed puppet regime took power. Far more!

People who allow their heart and soul to be taken over with bitterness and hatred become angry, vengeful, and even dangerous. People with the love and peace of Christ in their hearts do not salivate for war; they do not desire violence. They seek peace with their fellowman. Oh yes! They are prepared to defend themselves against the wolves and lions who seek to prey on their neighbors. Yes Sir! For sure! But that is a far cry from hollering out for war against people who have not even harmed us– or who may not even have the capability of harming us. And it is a far cry from booing a Christian man who actually believes in the Golden Rule.

One of America’s great warriors, General Douglas MacArthur rightly said, “War is a scourge.” Why would Christians cheer for a scourge unless, as King David said, “I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:7)

Secondly, many Christians have developed a Caesarean “might makes right” philosophy regarding patriotism. But from the earliest days of our nation, our leaders respected Saint Augustine’s “Just War” doctrine. Daniel Webster and other American statesman gave eloquent tribute to the necessity and importance of never fighting unjust wars.

Was Pharaoh justified when he ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent babies? Was King Herod justified when he ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent babies? Were Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung justified when they ordered the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children? Is violence against innocent people justified merely because the one ordering violence is powerful enough to get away with it? If so, will somebody please tell me what those Nuremberg trials were all about?

If power-mad potentates of history were unjustified in the manner in which they ignored the moral, Natural Law principles of God, how can Christians rejoice when power-mad leaders in the United States do the same thing? Do we really think that God has given some sort of special dispensation to America?

Missouri Senator Carl Schurz gave what must regarded as one of the truest and most insightful oratories regarding genuine patriotism ever given. In a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1899, he said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” Schurz, Carl. The Policy of Imperialism. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913. Print.

Instead of cheering when we see our country’s leaders ignoring the Golden Rule, constitutional government, and the Natural laws of God, we Christians should be on our knees begging God to forgive and mend us–and vociferously demanding that these leaders cease and desist their illicit conduct! The same trepidation that filled the heart of Thomas Jefferson should fill our hearts also: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Figuratively speaking, Christians in South Carolina threw Ron Paul to the lions. They tried to boo him off the stage when he proposed that America follow the Golden Rule in its dealings with foreign nations. I shudder to think what they would have done if he had quoted Jesus saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4454

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
January 26, 2012

Last weekend, Republican voters in South Carolina picked the candidate they want to be the GOP standard bearer for the November elections: Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich? Really? What did I miss? Or better, what did Republican voters in South Carolina miss?

What is not lost to virtually everyone who understands national politics is the fact that there is perhaps no State in the union where evangelical Christians have more influence within the State Republican Party than in South Carolina. For example, Greenville, South Carolina, is home to what could be regarded as the flagship university of evangelicalism, Bob Jones University. There are probably more evangelical churches, Christian schools, mission organizations, etc., per square mile in South Carolina than any State in the country. And the vast majority of them are politically active in GOP politics. So, when a GOP Presidential candidate wins South Carolina, you can be absolutely certain that he or she did so with the support and blessing from a sizeable number of evangelical Christians (and pastors) in the State.

In all candor, understanding the power and influence of evangelical Christianity in South Carolina Republican politics, Newt Gingrich’s victory in that State last week is extremely difficult for this writer to digest. I cannot think of a candidate that is more reprehensible to the values and principles that born-again Christians claim to embrace than Newt Gingrich!

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Have Christians (and other conservatives) had complete and total memory failure? To what problem could Newt Gingrich possibly be the solution (unless it’s the problem of Gold Diggers running out of good looking rich guys to sleep with)?

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

In the first place, Newt Gingrich is the personification of the word “globalist.” Gingrich is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Gingrich never saw a globalist agenda-item that he did not enthusiastically support such as: NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, FTAA, the North American Union (by whatever name it’s called at the moment), the NAFTA Superhighway, ad infinitum. Gingrich is as much committed to open borders as is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Gingrich is as committed to the advancement of the George Soros-sponsored Agenda 21 “green” initiatives as any person living today.

In the second place, Newt Gingrich’s actual record is fundamentally opposite his constant “conservative” rhetoric. Writing for The New American magazine, William Jasper reported, “During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state–while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the ‘homeless,’ businessmen, farmers, bankers, left-wing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991–$40 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991–$52.6 billion for agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992–$66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994–$250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.”

And let’s not forget that, after orchestrating the “Contract With America” that swept the GOP into a majority in both houses of Congress in 1994 (and promising to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and even eliminate five federal departments, including the Department of Education), it was Newt Gingrich that quickly abandoned those promises–which led to his eventual resignation following the 1996 elections, when voters fled the GOP in disgust after Gingrich’s compromises.

William Jasper also reported, “Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that Gingrich has run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that the National Director of TRIM James Toft was prompted to remark: ‘Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.’”

See William Jasper’s report at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73600337/Speaker-for-Whom-12Dec1994

In the third place, if the current trend toward nationalizing law enforcement and turning America into a police state disturbs you, Newt Gingrich is the last person in the world you would want to elect President of the United States.

Devvy Kidd writes, “On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn’t vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt’s cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN’s Crossfire, ‘If it wasn’t for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn’t have a crime bill.’

“Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition ‘threw’ the game, failing to challenge the bill’s fundamental flaw–that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties–and focused instead on ‘pork’ in the bill. ‘That crime bill stank to high heaven,’ charged Pat Buchanan. ‘It federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states.’”

See Devvy Kidds’ report at:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd449.htm

The contents of Newt Gingrich’s record in this report are merely the tip of the old proverbial iceberg. Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet; he makes Herman Cain look like the angel Gabriel. And this is the man Christians and conservatives in South Carolina want to be the next President of the United States?

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Ok, now let’s really get down to brass tacks. One reason why Gingrich won in South Carolina (and might win in Florida) is because many Christian voters will not vote for Mitt Romney, because Romney is a Mormon; and they won’t vote for Ron Paul, because he’s–well–Ron Paul.

Of course, many Christians voted for Rick Santorum, which explains his third-place finish. Santorum has built his entire campaign on trying to convince Christian conservatives that he is “their” man by talking up the hot button issues that social conservatives tend to focus on. But Santorum is just another G.W. Bush-type big-government neocon whose Senatorial record clearly shows that he votes with the big-government agenda the vast majority of the time. Some could even argue that Santorum is the elitists “conservative” Manchurian Candidate to pull votes away from Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the one man the elitists fear the most and will do anything to defeat.

Now, to Mitt Romney. Let me go on record, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney either, but it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. Absolutely nothing! I know a Mormon man who was a candidate for the US House of Representatives in the State of Utah whom I would support and vote for (for any office) in a heartbeat. His name is Scott Bradley. Scott is one of the most principled constitutionalists I have ever met.

Whether a candidate for public office is a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal is absolutely immaterial to whether or not I vote for him or her. The primary responsibility of a President (or any other civil magistrate) is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and to secure the rights and liberties of the American citizenry. That’s it! It is no skin off my nose where he or she goes to church, or even if he or she goes to church. It doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether they quote scripture or claim to be a Christian. What matters is that he or she honors their oath of office to defend the Constitution and the people’s liberties.

And as everyone should know by now, Mitt Romney’s track record in Massachusetts, from a constitutional point of reference, is absolutely abysmal. In fact, Romney’s Massachusetts’s health care monstrosity was the model for ObamaCare. In almost every discernable constitutional criterion, Mitt Romney falls short. And that’s why I won’t vote for Mitt Romney! In fact, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for the exact same reason I won’t vote for Newt Gingrich. (To his credit, however, at least Mitt Romney doesn’t have a passel of bimbos hiding under his bed.)

I have said it all over America, and I’ll say it again: I would rather vote for an unbeliever who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will not preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Next, let’s talk about Ron Paul. Many Christians all over America have foolishly rejected the candidacy of Ron Paul. They have done this for reasons which I will outline here.

“Ron Paul is not pro-life,” many Christians purport.

Of course, this statement is laughable. As a long-term US House member from Texas, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The so-called pro-life GOP in Washington, D.C., had several opportunities to pass this Act when it held power in both houses of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006.

Had it passed, Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have done two things: 1) it would have declared unborn babies to be human beings under the law, 2) it would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court under Article. 3. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would have effectively overturned the infamous Roe. v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has never performed an abortion; but he has delivered more than 4000 babies; he has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in the US Congress–but he’s not “pro-life”?

Newt Gingrich, as speaker of the House, did absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers domestically and internationally from receiving US taxpayer dollars. In fact, while Gingrich was Speaker of the House, taxpayer funding for abortion providers increased dramatically! Neither has he ever supported or promoted the Sanctity of Life Act, but since he “says” he’s pro-life, many Christians vote for Gingrich and not Paul?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I cannot support Ron Paul because he says he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a sin or not,” say many Christians.

Most readers know that I have been a minister of the Gospel for over 35 years. My convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality are well known. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from when I say that whether or not Ron Paul has a personal question as to whether homosexuality is a religious or biological issue has absolutely nothing to do with his fitness to be President of the United States. Absolutely nothing! We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.

Dr. Paul’s personal religious belief is not the issue. The issue is his fidelity to constitutional government. What Christians seemingly do not understand is that constitutional government does more to protect their God-given Natural rights than all of the religious rhetoric of all the politicians of the entire country put together!

Dr. Paul understands the nature of government and the nature of liberty. And he is committed to returning government to its rightful jurisdictional authority Dr. Paul knows that the states and local communities are the best protectors of the liberties and the values of the people–including the values relating to aberrant sexual behavior within those communities and states–NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  (Listening to many so-called “conservatives,” one may get the idea that they would be fine with doing away with independent statehood altogether and letting the central government in Washington, D.C., run everything. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were a wiser lot and emphatically left the bulk of governing authority to the states.) For example, if the State of Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, that’s Nevada’s business. And if Montana wants to make prostitution illegal, that is Montana’s business. If Florida wants to make medical marijuana illegal, that’s Florida’s business. If, however, Montana wants to legalize medical marijuana, that’s Montana’s business. Frankly, it is none of Washington, D.C.’s business either way! Ron Paul understands that.

Look at all the federal mandates that states and communities are implementing contrary to the values and belief systems of the citizens of the respective states and communities. That would not happen if Washington, D.C., would butt out of our affairs and let us govern ourselves. And if Massachusetts and California want to deprive their citizens of their God-given liberties, the people of those states can either remove those governments from power or move to a State where liberty is protected. But at least there would be some states standing in liberty to which one could go. As it is today, the entire country is under the heavy hand of usurpation and oppression due to the fact that, outside of Ron Paul and a few others in Washington, D.C., hardly anyone inside the Beltway believes in constitutional government.

Plus, look at the inconsistency of trying to elect civil magistrates by some sort of religious litmus test: Dr. Paul has been married to his wife, Carol, for over 50 years without the first scandal involving immoral activity, but because of a personal question regarding a religious issue, many Christians cannot vote for him? But Newt Gingrich can have so many extramarital affairs that he probably cannot even count them all, and yet his personal view of religion and morality are found acceptable to many Christians?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I can’t vote for Ron Paul, because he is ‘anti-Israel,’” many Christians say.

Here are the facts: Dr. Paul has a Jeffersonian philosophy regarding foreign entanglements. He believes that we should trade freely with all nations, have diplomatic relations with all nations, and live at peace with all nations as much as is possible. He believes that Israel is a sovereign state and, therefore, has the right to determine its own affairs without Washington, D.C., dictating how, when, and what Tel Aviv can and cannot do for its own peace and security. He believes we need to butt out of everybody’s business and let sovereign states conduct their own internal affairs. He believes the US military should be used to protect the territory and people of the United States of America and should not be the world’s policeman or the puppet of the Security Council at the United Nations. But somehow, that is an unspiritual philosophy and many Christians can’t support him?

Newt Gingrich wants to continue the Wilsonian foreign entanglement philosophy by continuing to send troops to fight undeclared, unconstitutional wars;  by continuing to entrap and enrage foreign capitols into conflicts that only serve the interests of international bankers and the military-industrial complex; by continuing to use Israel as a puppet to provoke conflict in the Middle East that only serves the purpose of advancing an international New World Order, and somehow this is seen as “spiritual” by many Christians who will support and vote for him?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

If the Republican Party has a death wish, they will nominate Newt Gingrich as their Presidential candidate. Gingrich is a snake-oil salesman; his words are absolutely meaningless; he has the morals of an alley cat; and he will sell America’s sovereignty to an international New World Order and turn our country into a police state. Christians, of all people, should know better.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4437

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
January 20, 2012

The Barack Obama administration is quietly in the process of rigging use of the US Census of 2010, which deliberately counted millions of illegal aliens, for the purpose of restructuring the apportionment of the US House of Representatives. Accordingly, as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of one of the negatively affected states (Montana), Mr. Bob Fanning and I have joined with several others in becoming amici curiae in a pending federal lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana against the US Secretary of Commerce, et al., which was filed January, 13, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court.

What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.

Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .”  (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!

In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.

Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Policy Analysis Center, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key, Maryland Del. Don Dwyer, Washington Rep. Matt Shea, Wyoming Sen. Kit Jennings, as well as Candidate for Governor of Montana, Bob Fanning, and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Montana, Chuck Baldwin.

Attorneys filing this brief before the US Supreme Court are Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan (of the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia) and Gary G. Kreep (of the U.S. Justice Foundation).

As citizens of the State of Montana, and as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana, Bob Fanning and I are outraged at this unconstitutional manipulation of the 2010 US Census, and the subsequent unconstitutional and unlawful misapportionment of the US House of Representatives. We are further outraged that our own governor, Brian Schweitzer (the incumbent Democrat governor who is term-limited out of office after the completion of his current term) has done nothing to prevent the people of the State of Montana from being denied the rightful seating of an additional US House member from the Montana delegation to Washington, D.C. He has not served as Montana’s watchman, to make certain that our State is being treated fairly by the Obama administration. Louisiana has been forced to go it alone, as the only State willing to bring this challenge. By not joining the lawsuit against the Obama administration, what Governor Schweitzer in essence is doing is allowing illegal aliens to deny the due representation of the citizens of Montana in Washington, D.C. This is an outrage!

It is a gross misinterpretation of the US Constitution to claim that the US Census is supposed to “count everyone living in this country.” Article. I. Section. I. Clause 3. as amended by Section. 2. of the 14th Amendment authorizes “a targeted decennial census of the ‘respective numbers’ of ‘the People’ of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found ‘living’ in the United States.” The term “the People” is a technical term used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to the polity, that is, the people who constituted the government and who are legal citizens of the nation. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally-authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required–the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are ‘chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ (Article. I. Section. 2. Clause. 1. US Constitution). The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of ‘the People’ of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.”

In the afore-mentioned lawsuit, we are asking the US Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

I can tell you that the people who want to disassemble constitutional government in this country are hoping that no one notices what the Obama administration is doing to manipulate the 2010 US Census to unlawfully reconstruct the US House of Representatives and Electoral College. Well, I can tell you, Bob Fanning and I (along with the other amici curiae supporting Louisiana in this lawsuit) are not going to let that happen!

I will be holding a press conference to blow the whistle on what is taking place to deny the people of the State of Montana (along with the people of the states of Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) their lawful representation in Washington, D.C. I am also using the influence and outreach of this column to alert the American people as to how the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

It is more than interesting also that the “anointed” establishment neocon Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate, Rick Hill, has, himself, not even bothered to alert the people of Montana to this travesty. Why not? Rick is a career politician who once served in the US House of Representatives from Montana. One would think he would want to protect the people of the State of Montana from this outrage. But he has said nothing! Plus, have you heard anything about this from any of the “conservative” talking heads on FOX News? No you haven’t! Why not? Why is it left to this column to alert you to this gross violation of constitutional government?

Therefore, I unashamedly appeal to readers to help Bob and I carry this fight to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representative and the Electoral College to the US Supreme Court. Please go to our web site at: http://www.fanning-baldwin.com

I also highly encourage readers to visit the web site of the law firm filing this brief. William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, et al., have been at the front lines in helping to defend constitutional government for longer than many of us have been alive. Bill Olson and Herb Titus have defended a sizeable number of patriot organizations and individuals against federal usurpation for decades. I don’t know of another law firm with the credentials and track record of fighting for constitutional government, Second Amendment rights, and individual liberty anywhere in the country than the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.

To learn more about this lawsuit and the Olson law firm, go to:

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/

In the meantime, each of us should be using our individual and collective sphere of influence to trumpet this attempted travesty as loudly as possible! I especially encourage readers in the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio to demand of every elected public office holder in their respective states to use every means possible to defend the lawful rights of their states to proper representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The people of America simply must not allow this flagrant manipulation of the 2010 US Census to take place! If the Obama administration gets by with this now, think how the states’ representation in Congress will be abused in the future.

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4422

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
January 12, 2012

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

See Foster’s report at: http://tinyurl.com/7thcxad

Ever since Congress passed the Patriot Act back in 2001, it seems the floodgates have been opened for more and more intrusions and abridgements of those fundamental liberties expressly protected in the Bill of Rights. From the Patriot Act, to the Military Commissions Act, to the NDAA (Indefinite Detention Act), and to now the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), these big government toadies in Washington, D.C., are clearly and unmistakingly declaring war on the American people.

I invite readers to see my column on the NDAA at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4382

Have we forgotten the MIAC report out of the State of Missouri back in 2009? In that official State report, supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin were identified as potential dangerous “militia members,” and Missouri State law enforcement officials were notified to be on guard. Beyond that, anyone that identified themselves as being pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Federal Reserve, Christians who believe in the return of Christ, and even returning Iraq War veterans were likewise targeted as potentially dangerous to Missouri State law enforcement personnel.

After the MIAC report surfaced, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I sent a letter to the governor of Missouri demanding that the report be removed and that the State of Missouri repudiate the report. After a firestorm of outrage by thousands of Americans all over the country (not just in Missouri) the State of Missouri did indeed remove and repudiate the report.

Totalitarian regimes throughout history have attempted to marginalize those people that the state intended to target for persecution. Once a group or groups of people had been sufficiently marginalized, it wasn’t long before public condemnation and then military retaliation took place. Legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, and now the EEA authorize military power to be used against US citizens, and given the propensity of government propagandists in the National Press Corps to marginalize groups of people whose ideas are thought to be politically incorrect, it’s only a matter of time before the executive branch of the federal government begins utilizing the dictatorial powers that have been granted to it by Congress. And, unfortunately, many State governments seem more than willing to participate in the Machiavellian machinations put forward by Washington, D.C. The MIAC report in the State of Missouri is a prime example.

Sadder still is the way so many Christian pastors and churches have become little more than glorified cheerleaders for Statism and Militarism. While the Trojan Horse of Big Government sits unnoticed in Town Square, so-called Christians spend most of their time either trying to kill each other because of differences of opinion over secondary doctrines, or trying to turn their worship services into miniature versions of Walt Disney World.

I ask you, did you hear anything from your pastor regarding NDAA? Did you hear anything from your pastor regarding the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act? If not, do you really think you will hear him say anything about the EEA? Again I ask you, are not the fundamental principles of liberty as valuable and as scriptural as the so-called “family values” we hear pastors talk so much about? I would argue that without the undergirding foundational principles of liberty (codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights), the so-called “family values” would become moot very quickly! Before Hitler’s government could begin marching people off to concentration camps, it had to destroy the foundational elements of liberty in the hearts and minds of the German people–including German pastors and churches. A government that doesn’t respect your liberty will not respect your life, your family, your religion, or your morality!

At this point, I invite readers to watch my address from last Sunday, January 8, 2012. In this address, I deal forthrightly with the NDAA and show the scriptural instruction regarding how unlawful and illegitimate government is the chief source of “tribulation” that the Bible talks so much about. I also give a scriptural outline as to how Christian people are to relate and respond to government–both good and bad. Watch my Sunday address at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4400

While we are on the topic of liberty, someone has produced a fascinating clip of Congressman Ron Paul showing the predictions he made on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2002–along with the fulfillment of those predictions in subsequent news headlines. People who view this brief You Tube video might just begin to understand why Congressman Paul is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands the causes of this loss of liberty taking place in our land. See Dr. Paul’s speech on the House floor at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

Given the way congressmen and senators from both major parties are willing to grant dictatorial powers to the President, it seems likely that the EEA will pass in much the same way as did the NDAA. It seems to me that the longer we keep expecting Washington, D.C., to solve our problems, the more our problems will increase. Remember the sagacious words of President Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Listen to that quote at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=145

If we are going to “guard and defend” (Daniel Webster) our liberties, it is going to take states and local communities to do it, because those miscreants in Washington, D.C., are doing everything they can to dismantle our liberties, not protect them. We need State governors, lieutenant governors, attorney generals, and sheriffs to stand in the gap NOW! And in that vein, I invite readers to follow the Fanning-Baldwin Montana gubernatorial campaign at the following Facebook and Twitter pages:

• http://www.facebook.com:80/pages/Fanning-Baldwin-2012/120415194744039?sk=wall
• https://twitter.com/#!/FanningBaldwin

In the meantime, beware! The Enemy Expatriation Act is coming soon, and with the way things are going, YOU could be deemed the enemy!

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4405

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
January 5, 2012

While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.

When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t.” See this report:  http://tinyurl.com/6pqx4bg

Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!

At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.

This is Tim’s column explaining the NDAA: http://tinyurl.com/7lkhayc

And this is Tim’s column, which rebukes journalists who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the NDAA: http://tinyurl.com/7j7reom

Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history–the Bill of Rights–has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

 “In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober. 

“This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!””

Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own.

Adams goes on to say, “Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’

 “Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’s momentary intentions on how he ‘wishes’ to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.”

See Adams report at: http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html

Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes–and with very few exceptions–both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.

We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized–along with the Declaration of Independence–as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights.

So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry? How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared? What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws? Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that!

And once more I need to remind readers that the only Presidential candidate that is sounding the alarm regarding this persistent and deliberate erosion of our liberties is Congressman Ron Paul.

I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”  So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4382

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
December 29, 2011

The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the reaction–or better, lack of reaction–by the GOP’s Presidential candidates is a perfect example of how it will not matter to a Tinker’s Dam which Republican candidate wins the nomination, unless that candidate is Congressman Ron Paul. This is what so many people within the so-called Religious Right and establishment GOP just do not understand: they do not understand the fact that America is in the throes of a burgeoning police state. They have buried their heads in the sand for so long that they wouldn’t know what tyranny looked like if it came up and bit them on their blessed assurance! They have totally drunk the propaganda Kool Aid that purports that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from the Sand People. Our Founding Fathers were a much wiser lot, of course. They understood perfectly that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from Washington, D.C., not Baghdad, or Tehran, or any other foreign entity.

Listen to Daniel Webster: “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

Yet, except for Ron Paul, not a single Republican Presidential candidate has issued the slightest warning regarding the draconian components of the NDAA that literally turns America’s homeland into a war zone and, with the stroke of a pen, effectively eviscerates the Bill of Rights. Why is that? Because, except for Ron Paul, none of them get it. Bachman, Gingrich, Perry, Romney, Santorum. None of them!

The day after Christmas, TheHill.com posted this report quoting Dr. Paul. “GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s ‘slip into tyranny’ and virtually assures ‘our descent into totalitarianism.’

 “‘The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,’ Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. ‘To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.’”

The Hill report continued quoting Dr. Paul, “‘The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,’ Paul continued. ‘It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.’”

The report also quoted Congressman Paul as saying, “‘The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,’ Paul said. ‘That should chill all of us to our cores.’

 “‘The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.’”

See TheHill report at: http://tinyurl.com/7reo6yp

Then again, not only are these pathetic Presidential pretenders not aware of this fast erosion of our liberties being orchestrated by these miserable miscreants inside the Beltway, how many of you folks who go to church every Sunday hear your pastor say a peep about the totalitarian elements contained within the NDAA? Yep! That’s what I thought! They don’t get it, either!

For that matter, where is the first State Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General to say, “Not in my State!”? Where are the county sheriffs to say, “Not in my county!”? (I can promise you this, if Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin are elected Montana Governor and Lieutenant Governor in 2012, we will say it! And we will say it loudly enough that everyone in Washington D.C., will be able to hear it!)

And speaking of Montana, it is extremely encouraging to learn that my friend and Oathkeepers founder, attorney Stewart Rhodes, is leading a recall petition against the two US senators from Montana who both supported NDAA. Salem-News.com has the story: “Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86-14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

 “Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.”

The Salem-News report continued saying, “Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, ‘reason for recall’ reads:

 “The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S. citizens:

 “‘a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…’

 “[NDAA] permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, ‘for the duration of hostilities’ in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as ‘task which does not end’ to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2011.

 “Those who voted Aye on December 15, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

 “The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”

The report goes on to quote Rhodes (a Yale Law School graduate) as saying, “These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It’s not about the left or the right, it’s about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.” Amen, Stewart! Amen!

See the Salem-News report at: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december252011/ndaa-recall.php

NDAA should be to Americans in 2011 what the Boston Massacre was to the colonists in 1770, because this Act literally massacres the Bill of Rights. (And risking the charge that I’m tooting my own horn, when Montanans elect Bob Fanning Governor and Chuck Baldwin Lieutenant Governor in 2012, it will be the second “shot heard ’round the world.”) And of all the Presidential hopefuls, Ron Paul is only one who gets it!

P.S. This is the final call for THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. To order this giant compilation of America’s great historical documents, go to: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=279

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4360

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
December 22, 2011

As we approach the celebration of Christ’s birth, I am reminded of the words of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”

Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, founded upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.

America’s forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part:

 “In the name of God, Amen. … Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

The sentiments and statements of America’s founders make it clear that this nation has enjoyed a love and appreciation for the rights and freedoms recognized in Natural Law that is unique in the annals of human history. No other people have such a heritage.

One thing America’s founders could not envision was–after they had paid so terrible a price to purchase our liberties–that the time would come when their posterity would be denied the basic freedoms to publicly express their reverence for God. Never could they have imagined that the day would come when citizens of the sovereign states (each with a State constitution protecting religious liberty) would be denied their right to pray in school, or place Nativity scenes on public property, or hang copies of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls.

I am also confident that America’s founders would be completely repulsed by the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism, and globalism. At the national level, Democrats and Republicans alike have created a central government so large that it would be unrecognizable to any Founding Father (even Alexander Hamilton or John Adams). In addition, both Big Business and Big Religion have sold our great country down the old proverbial river. Truly, our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Therefore, at this Christmas season, let us remember well the founding principles of these United States of America. Furthermore, let us renew with vigor the fight for freedom before our liberties and our heritage are gone altogether.

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas!

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4331

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
December 1, 2011

It is well documented that many of America’s Founding Fathers had a very real and deep-seated distrust of standing armies–and for good reason. They had just fought a costly and bloody war for independence, which had been largely predicated upon the propensities for the abuse and misuse of individual liberties by a pervasive and powerful standing army (belonging to Great Britain) amongst them. Listen to Thomas Jefferson: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” Note that Jefferson identified both banking institutions and standing armies as being “dangerous to our liberties.” James Madison said, “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” Elbridge Gerry (Vice President under James Madison) called standing armies “the bane of liberty.”

For the most part, the sentiments of our founders ring hollow to modern Americans who, ever since World War II, have glorified, idolized, and practically even worshiped the standing US military. But of course, with only isolated instances (which were almost always completely covered up by the mainstream news media) of the abuse of military power being committed against US citizens, the American people, as a whole, have no point of reference directing them to the sagacity of America’s founders on the subject. Indeed, who could even imagine that US military forces would ever be used against the US citizenry? After all, the media did a masterful job of covering up the most flagrant example of US military forces being used against US citizens when US military forces assisted federal law enforcement agencies in slaughtering the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993. So, most Americans simply shut their eyes against that “painful truth” and chose to ignore the fact that it even happened.

Yes, there have been isolated instances of military personnel abusing their authority against American citizens (i.e., Waco in 1993, Kent State University in 1970), but overall the founders’ deep-seated distrust of standing armies has been replaced with deep-seated trust. But were our founders right to be distrusting of standing armies? And are we wrong to be so trusting of standing armies? Consider the following report by Dr. Andrew Bosworth.

“There is a shocking piece of legislation working its way through Congress. A Defense Authorization bill for 2012 allows for military detentions of American citizens on American soil. These can be indefinite detentions, with no trial.”

Bosworth quotes an ACLU (an organization whose efforts regarding the so-called “separation of church and state” issues I strongly oppose, but whose efforts regarding issues that can only be identified as an emerging police state I strongly support) statement as saying, “The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people–including Americans living in the United States itself–indefinitely and without charge.

 “The Defense Authorization bill–a “must-pass” piece of legislation–is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President–and all future presidents–the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.”

Especially egregious are sections 1031 and 1032. They:

1.  Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
2.  Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
3.  Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

Bosworth also notes that, “The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.”

Bosworth goes on to say, “Even mainstream, apolitical Americans would be concerned about such a provision that, on its face, is unconstitutional. Ordinary Americans are already waking up to the specter of tyranny, and the NDAA for 2012 would accelerate that process.”

Near the conclusion of Bosworth’s report, he states, “As many Americans know, for over a decade there have been dozens of pieces of legislation and executive orders that have chipped away at the US Constitution, specifically at its Bill of Rights.

“The ‘war on terror’ was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.”

See Bosworth’s report at: http://tinyurl.com/7n9ddxf

I well remember when my friend LT CDR Ernest “Guy” Cunningham conducted his “Combat Arms Survey” to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC’s Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, back on May 10, 1994. A couple of questions in this survey were especially revealing (and startling). John McManus picks up the story at this point: “One of the questions asked the Marines if they would be willing to be assigned to a ‘national emergency police force’ within the U.S. under U.S. command. The survey showed that 6.0 percent strongly disagreed, 6.3 percent disagreed, 42.3 percent agreed, 43.0 percent strongly agreed, and 2.3 percent had no opinion.”

Commenting on these results, Cunningham said, “Do you realize that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?” Remember, these were active duty Marines back in 1994.

Responses to another question were even more startling. Cunningham’s question: “Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.” The result: “42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion.” This equates to approximately 61% of Marines saying they would defy orders to turn their weapons on US citizens in order to disarm them; 26% saying they would not disobey such orders; and 12% refusing to say one way or the other, which means you could probably add them to the 26% who would not disobey orders to turn their weapons on American citizens.

See McManus’ report at: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

Not too long ago, I asked a retired US Army Major General what he thought the results would be today if CDR Cunningham gave that same survey to US Marines? He said he thought that the number of those refusing such orders would be much higher and the number of those complying with such orders would be much lower. Given the Levin/McCain bill currently working its way through the US Congress, I sure hope he’s right! And I also hope that we modern Americans were not wrong to discard our founders’ distrust of standing armies.

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4213

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

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

By Chuck Baldwin
November 22, 2011

That first Thanksgiving in the fall of 1621 saw about 50 Mayflower Pilgrims and 100 native Indians come together for a celebration feast consisting of a variety of homegrown vegetables–including corn, squash, beans, barley, and peas–along with wild turkey and venison. The precise date is not known, but it is believed to have taken place in late October or early November.
Historians record that the Massachusetts weather was crisp, but not
cold–and the fall foliage dazzled America’s newcomers with a cornucopia of
color.

These Pilgrims were mostly “Separatists,” who had left Europe to seek a land
of liberty, where men could be free to worship God according to the dictates
of their own conscience–not according to the demands of a State church or
an oppressive government. They made their intentions and motivations clear
when they signed America’s first covenant, a document called The Mayflower
Compact:

“We whose names are under-written . . . Having undertaken, for the Glory of
God and advancement of the Christian faith . . .”

This undertaking had prompted them to leave their homes, livelihoods,
families, friends, and way of life, and make a dangerous voyage across the
Atlantic Ocean. Many became ill and some did not survive to see the New
World. But they all believed that they were doing God’s will and that He
would honor their faith. And He certainly did.

Although the original Pilgrims had a few confrontations with the American
Indians–some were even violent–for the most part, the Indians were
friendly and accommodating. They taught the Pilgrims what crops to grow and
how best to grow them. They helped them understand American agriculture and
the ways of the wild game endemic to that part of North America. And by the
time they held their first Thanksgiving banquet, the relationship between
those original Pilgrims and Massasoit and his small tribe of Indians was one
of genuine trust and friendship.

God had, indeed, smiled upon the small band of Pilgrims. They had survived a
long, treacherous journey across the ocean, had written the immortal
Mayflower Compact, had built their homes and communities, had established a
civil body-politic, had successfully planted and harvested enough food to
keep them through the winter, and had established peaceful relations with
the native Indians.

The Pilgrim Thanksgiving may have been the first such celebration, but it
was far from the last.

Not long after becoming America’s first (and greatest) President, George
Washington issued our country’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation on October
3, 1789. In the proclamation, Washington wrote:

“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly
to implore his protection and favor . . .”

“Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November
next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that
great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that
was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto
him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the
People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal
and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence
which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the
great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since
enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been
enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and
happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the
civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have
of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the
great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.”

“And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to
pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all
the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to
protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn
kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and
concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue,
and the increase of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto
all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be
best.”

Presidents ever since have likewise issued proclamations of thanksgiving
exhorting the American people to humbly acknowledge the protection and
blessing of Heaven upon our land. It is particularly appropriate that they
would do this. After all, we Americans–of all people–have sufficient
reason to give corporate thanks to Almighty God, as our Christian forebears
founded this land for the express purpose of seeking religious liberty.

The history of the world’s nations is largely the story of one despot being
replaced with another. Throughout the annals of human history, the story of
human government is that of the rise and fall of one empire after another;
one king or potentate after another; one dictatorship being replaced with
another dictatorship; one form of monarchy being replaced with another form
of monarchy. Some were kinder than others. Some were benevolent. Some were
harsh. And some were downright cruel. But until July 4, 1776, there was no
such thing as a nation founded on self-government, federalism, and religious
liberty.

For the first time in world history, Christian people were granted a land of
blessing and hope. In the human sense, America became to Christians what
Canaan was to Old Testament Israel. In America, believers could live at
peace with both their society and their government. They no longer had to
choose between obeying their God and obeying their king. In America, there
was no king but King Jesus. In America, men could truly render unto God that
which was God’s, as Caesar did not demand for himself that which was God’s
alone. (In fact, in America, we have no Caesar.) Men no longer had to
violate their conscience in order to stay out of jail. Believers were no
longer required to worship at the altar of the State or the State Church. In
America, men could live free.

I repeat: if anyone has a reason to give corporate thanksgiving unto God, it
is the people of the United States.

The common attitudes being displayed by many Christians–along with their
spiritual leaders and pastors–today, however, would seem largely out of
place by America’s founders. Apathy, indifference, and lethargy seem to rule
the day. I constantly hear things like: “God hasn’t called me to get
involved in politics,” or “I am only called to preach the Gospel,” or “Maybe
we need to go into persecution,” or “It’s not my responsibility to fight for
liberty.” All of which expose their personal cowardice and utter contempt
for the sacrifices rendered by their brave ancestors–sacrifices that
procured the very blessings of liberty that they now hoggishly wallow in
without appreciation or afterthought. And now, when faced with the imminent
threat of the loss of the very liberties that they have taken for granted,
they glibly reject any personal responsibility to maintain said liberties
for their posterity–and pharisaically excuse their miserable conduct with
pious-sounding clichés. They even have the wicked audacity to attempt to use
the Scripture as an unholy closet in which they might hide–the same
Scripture that their forefathers claimed as an illuminating beacon that was
used to conquer the darkness of oppression.

I pray that this Thanksgiving season may be a time of both rejoicing and
reflection, as well as a time of feasting and fellowship. But may it also be
a time of rededication and renewal and a time of determination and decision.
And I pray that we will each give our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength
to the restoration of the principles of liberty upon which our republic was
built. Let us renew the Spirit of ’76 in America once more. In the face of
whatever danger and challenge that may oppose us, I pray that we will be the
ones that will rise up to reclaim the blessings of liberty for our children
and our children’s children. So help us, Almighty God!

This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4199

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be 

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © 2011 Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years
and have 3 children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6

made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
Copyright © 2011 Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which
America was founded. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3 children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p