Tuesday, September 30, 2008
We could move into a dark age if we don't wake up to what is really happening.
The treacherous globalists and criminal banksters are forging ahead with their nefarious plans for a dark age, disguising their NWO as an angel of light, as something that offers salvation and will deliver us from all evil - while holding all nations captive.
Banksters to the gallows!
American taxpayers to bail out foreign banks
Globalist Jews Serve German-Jesuit Masters
David Ben-Ariel posted on 2008-09-30 09:59:44 ET Reply Trace
Monday, September 29, 2008
A weekly column
September 29, 2008: Lipstick on a Bailout
This time last week, the biggest bailout in the history of the world seemed to be a fait accompli. Last weekend, the Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury had harsh words of doom and gloom for Congressional leaders, with the rest of the administration parroting along, and by last Monday it seemed both parties were about to fall in line and vote our Republic away by socializing the banking industry through this bailout. Foolish business behavior was about to be rewarded, and propped up a little longer, the bubble blown a little bigger, and our coming …
Continue reading »
See all Texas Straight Talk »
Speeches and Statements
September 29, 2008 The Bailout
"The process of this bailout reminds me of a panic-stricken swimmer thrashing in the water only making his situation worse. Even a “bipartisan deal”—whatever that is supposed to mean— will not stop the Congress from thrashing about."
Continue reading »
September 15, 2008: Congressional Offices Available for Assistance
"Congressman Ron Paul continues to be gravely concerned about the devastation caused by Hurricane Ike in Texas and getting help to everyone affected is his utmost priority..."
Continue reading »
Hear Congressman Paul's weekly legislative update toll free888-322-1414
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
I watched the video and could again see that the BIG LIE that is Obama, who pretends to feel the pain of the little people, continues to hobnob with the rich and famous, the limousine liberals, the Afro-centric racists: Obama lives in an ebony tower with his hateful wife, Michelle (who despises white people but stays put in the United States rather than return to Africa where she belongs, just like all the other hypocrites in Jeremiah Wright's dark haven of hatred, a black hole) - out of touch, out of reach - like Nimrod.
Barack Hussein Obama is just another CFR tool, a bought and paid for prostitute, who offers a change that he doesn't believe in (as he knows better) since Obama is part of the problem (definitely not the solution), as documented, but hopes to continue to mislead the mesmerized, having learned how to talk to white people and play them for fools and use and abuse his black brethren as useful idiots.
John McCain also offers nothing new, as Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same CFR coin, globalist puppets, treacherous tools, but Chuck Baldwin for president of the United States would restore this Republic (it's not a democracy!) by upholding and enforcing the Constitution as legitimate servants of "We The People" know and understand they're entrusted to do.
"Stop being good Democrats...Stop being good Republicans...and start being Good Americans."- Aaron Russo
Award-Winning Film Maker Says US Is Becoming Police State
Will God give us a respite with the election of Chuck Baldwin or is the writing on the wall and it's over? Enough is enough? Isn't the contrived economic crisis evidence of how spiritually bankrupt we've been for too long now and indictative of divine punishment on the way with the German-Jesuit EU throwing us into receivership: NATIONAL CAPTIVITY?
Banksters to the gallows!
Our Banks Are Going To Collapse
American taxpayers to bail out foreign banks
Re: Jews must make tough choice between work, school and religion
If you're an observant Jew, there are seven religious holidays in the next month that you will have to take off from work or school.
And if you're an observant Christian, a Sabbath-keeping Church of God member (who keeps the biblical Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws like Yeshua and the early Church of God), you take off the biblical days the Bible commands us to (without the additional days Judaism - for its traditional reasons - has tacked on).
If our Jewish brethren find it so difficult to love and obey God in their self- imposed exile, at least they can always opt to follow Judaism to the Jewish homeland where such holy days, the biblical festivals, are recognized and kept. Furthermore, the Holy Land of Israel is the ideal location to celebrate before the LORD!
David Ben-Ariel posted on 2008-09-29 13:13:52 ET Reply Trace
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Any foreigners who try to shove their hands into the pockets of U.S. taxpayers should have their hands cut off.
"Now, taxpayers are being asked to provide $700 billion to Wall Street. (I hope readers are aware that, not only will American banks be bailed out, but foreign banks will also be bailed out. Then again, at least half of the Federal Reserve is comprised of foreign banks, anyway.)"
- Chuck Baldwin
No Amnesty For Wall Street
David Ben-Ariel posted on 2008-09-27 20:41:06 ET Reply Trace
NONE of the examples given proved her points and actually proved just the opposite. Sharing dominion over nature, Creation, is not the same as who has the right to preach. That is non sequitur and a dangerous leap in logic...
God Doesn't Ordain Women Preachers!
Friday, September 26, 2008
By Chuck Baldwin
September 26, 2008
At the time of this writing, the U.S. House and Senate are poised to pass a$700 billion bailout to Wall Street. At the behest of President George W.Bush, the U.S. taxpayers are going to be on the hook for what can only be referred to as the biggest fraud in U.S. history.
Virtually our entire financial system is based on an illusion. We spend more than we earn, we consume more than we produce, we borrow more than we save, and we cling to the fantasy that this can go on forever. The glue that holds this crumbling scheme together is a fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note, which was created out of thin air by an international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve. According to Congressman Ron Paul, in the last three years, the Federal Reserve has created over $4 trillion in new money. The result of all this "money-out-of-thin-air" fraud is never-ending inflation. And the more prices rise, the more the dollar collapses. Folks, this is not sustainable.
Already, Bear Stearns was awarded a $29 billion bailout, followed quickly by the bailout of Freddie and Fannie that will cost the taxpayers up to $200 billion. Then the Fed announced the bailout of AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Mind you, AIG is an enormous global entity with assets totaling more than $1.1 trillion. Moreover, the Feds agreed to pump $180 billion into global money markets. And the Treasury Department promised $50 billion to insure the holdings of money market mutual funds for a year. Now, taxpayers are being asked to provide $700 billion to Wall Street. (I hope readers are aware that, not only will American banks be bailed out, but foreign banks will also be bailed out. Then again, at least half of the Federal Reserve is comprised of foreign banks, anyway.) In other words, the Federal Reserve is preparing to spend upwards of $1 trillion or more. Remember again, this is fiat money, meaning it is money printed out of thin air.
All of this began when the U.S. Congress abrogated its responsibility to maintain sound money principles on behalf of the American people (as required by the Constitution) and created the Federal Reserve. This took place in 1913. The President was Woodrow Wilson. (I strongly encourage readers to buy G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature from Jekyll Island.)
Since then, the U.S. economy has suffered through one Great Depression and several recessions--all of which have been orchestrated by this international banking cartel. Now, we are facing total economic collapse.
But don't worry: the international bankers will lose nothing--not even their bonuses. They will maintain their mansions, yachts, private jets, and Swiss bank accounts. No matter how bad it gets on Main Street, the banksters onWall Street will still have the best of it--President Bush and the Congress will make sure of that. This is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on.
America's founders were rightfully skeptical of granting too much power to bankers. Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Jefferson also believed that "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Daniel Webster warned, "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money."
Webster also said, "We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no, Sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors, and a ruined people."
Our first and greatest President George Washington said, "Paper money has had the effect in your State [Rhode Island] that it ever will have, to ruin commerce--oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annulits charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."
What President Andrew Jackson said to the bankers in 1832 is exactly what an American President should say to these criminal international bankers today. But what George Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama want to do is provide amnesty for the international bankers, just as they want to provide amnesty for illegal aliens. I say, No amnesty for Wall Street, and no amnesty for illegal aliens, either. Instead of sending these banksters on extended vacations to the Bahamas with millions of taxpayer dollars in their pockets, we should be sending them straight to jail!
The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in theU.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and theInternal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver. Anything short of this will only delay and worsen the inevitable collapse that has already begun.
*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:
*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United Stateson the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Re: No Amnesty For Wall Street
Instead of sending these banksters on extended vacations to the Bahamas with millions of taxpayer dollars in their pockets, we should be sending them straight to jail!
That would be too merciful to the cruel: send the treacherous bastards to the gallows! And when will folks stop beating around the bush and acknowlege the fact that most of these "international bankers" are globalist Jews (who give Torah-observant Jews a bad name) intent on forging a New World Order for their German-Jesuit masters?
David Ben-Ariel posted on 2008-09-26 22:11:56 ET Reply Trace
Race matters whether folks want to acknowledge it or remain in denial, until it’s too late.
God bless us all to live within the designated borders of diverse nations our Great Creator has decreed for us, all revolving around the Twelve Tribes of Israel whom God alone has called to ultimately become His Servant Nation, a light to all nations, a truly United Kingdom, One Nation Under God.
When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam [even though we're all family],He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.
Acts 17:2626 And [although] He [God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth [we're all human]… [yet He] has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings…
FATHER GOD KNOWS BEST, don’t you agree?
Comment by David BenAriel — September 26, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Al Sharpton is a race hustler like Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright, like Barack Obama, are hypocrites who claim to be Afro-centric but fail to return to Africa where they belong, extorting an imposed “white guilt” while complaining about how bad they have it here.
They are representative of the curse these white Israelite “Lands of the Covenant” (Artzot Habrit - Menashe ben Yosef) suffer from due to our idolatry and immorality (Daniel 9:11).
When “We The People” (Am Yisrael) get back in our place with God, they’ll be put back into their place, just like the Arabs in Israel, the blacks in Southern Africa, etc.
Comment by David BenAriel — September 26, 2008 @ 10:32 am
“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”
— Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273
“See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.”
— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371
Segregation is best for everybody
Comment by David BenAriel — September 26, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
by Chuck Baldwin
September 23, 2008
Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, "I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate." (See the complete statement at: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582 )
Obviously, I could not be more delighted and honored to have Dr. Paul's endorsement. I called him last evening and thanked him personally. And now I want to thank him publicly.
I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties--not to mention the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much support from the Republican Party in his home district.
I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still be supporting Ron Paul.
I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.
Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight.
I want to return America to constitutional government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the federal government accordingly.
My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called "war on drugs" and the so-called "war on terror." No more warrantless searches and seizures.
No more eavesdropping on Americans' phone calls, or collecting Americans' emails, or spying on American citizens without court order and oversight. No more stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in the name of "national security."
In addition, I would use every power and authority vested to my office to preserve and protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And, yes, I will immediately restore Posse Comitatus. As President, I want to protect America from Washington, D.C., as much I want to protect it from foreign powers.
I will also take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously, where it states, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States." This means the day I am sworn in as President of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down! The NAFTA superhighway is dead. The North American Union is dead. I will work to eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. The FTAA is DOA. I will not expend tax dollars for the support of the United Nations.
Furthermore, I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to "repel Invasions." This means we will secure America's borders, because the illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion, and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens. I will also aggressively prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegals. And did I mention that my first day in office is Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean's last day in prison? I will personally open the prison doors and restore to these men their freedom. I will also give them their jobs back (with pay), if they want them. And one more item on this point: my first day of office is also U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's last day on the job.
I also share Ron Paul's concerns for the way the two major parties have allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist, nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other 130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other nation's business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.
Furthermore, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is over, when I become President. Because I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, I would never send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a Declaration of War by Congress. In dealing with rogue terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, I will seek letters of Marque and Reprisal from Congress, which would give me the authority to use whatever special and/or private forces are necessary to seek out and destroy those who desire our hurt. And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will be no man's slave, neither will I be any man's master. I also share Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of life.
When I become President, I will use the bully pulpit of the White House to press Congress to pass Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand. On this topic, the GOP is especially hypocritical. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government for six years and did nothing to save the life of a single unborn child. Saving unborn babies from the abortionists' scalpel is more than rhetoric with me, however.
Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics. Dr. Paul has been predicting the current financial meltdown in this country for years. And when all is done, the current bailout being proposed will do more harm than good. The problem is, America's leaders have rejected sound money policies for years, and the chickens are coming home to roost. As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.
Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will do any of the above. If he were President, Dr. Paul would do it, however, and so would I.
Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in inviting all of Dr. Paul's supporters to help us take the message of constitutional government into the general election on November 4. Thank you.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:http://www.baldwin08.com/ © Chuck Baldwin
Interfaith Dialogue, What is it Good for?
Posted: 23 Sep 2008 01:47 AM CDT
As I am doing my research on the issue of Islam I sometimes come across articles speaking about interfaith dialogue. Interfaith sounds well and good but the question is what are the actual results of these meetings? Most recently there was a world wide interfaith conference sponsored by the Christian oppressing Saudis. As for Jewish people, they are not even allowed in Saudi Arabia. Just weeks later those same Saudis had over a dozen Christians deported from Saudi Arabia. The horrifying crime of these Christians was worshipping in their homes. Now on September 25Th there will be an interfaith dinner with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taking place in NYC. The dinner is to break the Ramadan fast. How any self respecting person can sit and eat dinner with the President of Iran is beyond me, let alone Christians and Jews. The Iranian President has a clear agenda that is no one is going to change. He recently has stated that Israel will not survive in any shape or form and the Iranian government has recently voted in a bill calling for the death penalty of those that leave Islam for another religion. Talking to this so called man will not change a thing and it is a complete lesson in denial for those the extend their hands to him. Let us look at three so called "moderate" Islamic countries, starting with Jordan. The Jordanian government prohibits conversion from Islam and the proselytizing of Muslims. The government there has been enforcing this law, as they have recently arrested eight Evangelists for this offense. Secondly is our so called "ally" Egypt who we support by giving them $3 billion dollars a year. Coptic Christians have been persecuted there for centuries and most recently the Egyptian police themselves violently stopped Christians there from rebuilding the only Church in their area. The police even went so far as to hit three women who were helping with the repairs. The third so called "moderate" Islamic country that I will address today is Turkey. A September report shows that the Turkish army has been following Christian missionaries in Turkey and recording their every move. This is clearly an act of intimidation. It is clear that only one group benefits from interfaith dialogue and interfaith dialogue only has one result, that is Islam advancing in our societies. It is time to stop pretending and start protecting ourselves. It is time for a call to end all Mosque construction and Muslim immigration.
The Plain Truth about Imam Khattab
Ohio Mosque Promotes Murder!
Muslims incited to kill Jews
Behind the Veil of Islam
Toledo, Islam, and Terrorists
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ron Paul No Longer Neutral We have great news! Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin
You can read the original at www.Campaign forLiberty.com
We have work to do. Chuck Baldwin, Darrell Castle and Ron Paul as our Secretary of TreasureWe need you to get back in the game NOW!
"I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, The Constitution Party candidate" Ron Paul
You Can Help!!!! 1. Join the team a. Be a Precinct Leader b. Download and Distribute Flyers c. Volunteer for the Phone Bank d. Lit Drop in Neighborhoods e. Create You Tubes f. Listen to www.RevolutionBroadcast.com 2. Donate on Friday Sept. 26 www.BuckForChuck.com www.baldwin08.com
Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.
Rough ride? Turbulence that will rock the country to its foundations! The big-government apologists aren't going to repent of their treacherous greed and endless scams at taxpayers' expense.
David Ben-Ariel posted on 2008-09-23 11:57:20 ET Reply Trace
By Chuck Baldwin
September 23, 2008
One of America's most notable television and radio news anchormen and commentators, George Putnam, has died. He was 94 years young, and everyone who knew him understands that, in George's case, 94 years of age really was young.
Mr. Putnam began his celebrated career on a Minneapolis radio station in1934. He was the winner of three Emmy awards and, at one time, was the highest-rated and highest-paid TV news anchor in Los Angeles. He was also the recipient of six California Associated Press Television and RadioAssociation awards and more than 300 other honors and citations. It is said that George Putnam was the inspiration for the newscaster character, Ted Baxter, on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show.
Putnam detested labels but often called himself a "conservative Democrat."Having lived through the Great Depression, he spoke admiringly of PresidentFranklin Roosevelt. He would also have to be called a Reagan Democrat, as he was never in want for a word of praise for his longtime friend, "Ronnie"Reagan. George was also a longtime member of the NAACP and the Urban League.
Many people with George Putnam's background would certainly find little in common with a "Christian conservative" such as me. I suppose because George Putnam was an independent thinker, however, he often asked me to be a guest on his radio show. This would usually take place after he had read one of my columns. By the time I would make it to the air, George was already "worked up."
"What the h--- are these people in Washington, D.C., doing to us, Chuck?"Mr. Putnam would ask. And then, for the next 30 minutes or hour, he and I would discuss current events.
For some reason, George liked me; and I know for sure that I liked him.
I have been interviewed by scores (perhaps hundreds) of journalists, reporters, newsmen, radio talk show hosts, etc., but nobody encouraged and energized me like George Putnam. I always considered a request by George Putnam for an interview to be the high-water mark of my interview schedule. In short, nobody did it better than George Putnam.
George Putnam was the real deal. He did not like phonies; and he hated the charade and chicanery that is currently going on in Washington, D.C., maybe even more than I do (and that is saying something).
As Mr. Putnam's health deteriorated, it was his co-host, producer, and announcer, Chuck Wilder, who would interview me. And let me add, ChuckWilder is a terrific interviewer, as well. My most recent interview with Wilder was shortly before Mr. Putnam passed away. I remember telling Chuck, "Please tell George that I am praying for him." I hope he relayed mymessage.
I never knew Mr. Putnam on a personal level. I only knew him through his radio show and the interviews that he conducted with me. But that was enough. George Putnam was an American original. He commanded a booming voice and sharp wit. And he used both with great precision. It is doubtful that I will have the opportunity to be interviewed by someone of his caliber again. I will miss that.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order.
Use this link:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:http://www.baldwin08.com/
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Monday, September 22, 2008
Ron Paul: This Bailout Won't Be the Last
Post Date: 2008-09-20 17:57:51 by WhiteSands
I recently chatted with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) about the gigantic financial bailout that the government is preparing to undertake. Some excerpts from the interview: What's your take on this huge financial bailout? "It's more of the same. More debt and more inflation and more pressure on the dollar. Ultimately, although the markets are responding very favorably at the moment, I think it is going to be devastating to the dollar and to our financial situation in this country." But don't we need to get these toxic assets off banks' balance sheets? "Sure, they need to be removed. Somebody needs to suffer the consequences [but] not the taxpayer. Everybody knows that they have ...
How many investment bankers are yet as scared for their own personal safety as the typical convenience-store clerk? When the average investment banker is wearing Kevlar instead of Brioni suits, then it really will be "Judgment Day On Wall Street."
Before it's all over, everybody is going to be affected by our economic collapse and even those in their ivory towers will come crashing down, as Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall warns:
OUR BANKS ARE GOING TO COLLAPSE, AND OUR ARMY WON’T BE ABLE TO MUSTER ANY STRENGTH! This national demoralization (we’ve only just begun to experience) will result in DEMOBILIZATION! We’re going down (Ezek. 7:14) in FLAMING DEFEAT!
The prophet Isaiah had two sons with symbolic names (Isa. 7:3, 8:1, 18). They’re to warn us of two major events about to take place: 1) OUR DESTRUCTION’S IMMINENT: THE BLITZKRIEG’S ABOUT TO BEGIN! (Maher-shalal-hash-baz). And 2) OUR HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS WILL RETURN HOME (Shear- yashuv)...
O Israelites! Who could beat Great Britain in battle, or whip the U.S. in war, when God shed His grace on thee? Europe could NEVER knock us down and kick us around—until now! Because GOD’S REFINING OUR GOLD IN THE FURNACE OF AFFLICTION, AND PURIFYING OUR SILVER THROUGH GREAT TRIBULATION (Isa. 48:10).
Sunday, September 21, 2008
readers who are unfamiliar with that ridiculous distinction that normal humans (who would consider a Joe also a Jew) don’t make, only nutcases like you do
Ridiculous distinction? What chutzpah and blasphemy! You slander all those holy men and prophets inspired to make such distinctions. It is historically and biblically important to make this distinction between Jews and Israelites and to be careful not to blur their identities (Ezek. 44:23). After all, God has devoted four books of the Bible to do just that!
However, it is easy to perceive why those captive souls steeped in the Babylonian Mystery religion of TRADITIONAL Christianity (who follow Roman wolves in sheep’s clothing with their accursed replacement theology of Sunday, pagan holidays pretending to be Christian and many other unclean doctrines and idolatrous ideas of their Gentilized Christianity) want to remain willfully ignorant of our Hebrew roots and biblical responsibilities and keep others in the dark about it, blind to Joseph’s identity, because they’re proud and stubborn and unwilling to repent of their Gentile religious lies and tinsel traditions to return to the Faith once delivered and be restored and reconciled with our Father God, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Promised Land of Israel.
Beyond Babylon fulfills the need to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God while emphasizing a warning to the world; it includes the truth about our Hebrew roots and biblical responsibilities; about God's Sabbath and Holy Days versus Satan's Sunday and pagan holidays; about Israel's demise and Europe's rise -- these are foundational truths.
Beyond Babylon builds upon that sure foundation by pointing out that it's the sorcerer-pope, the false prophet, who presents Europe's imminent leader as the Savior of "Christian Western Civilization;" he'll perform miracles in his presence urging Europe to remodel themselves after the "Holy Roman Empire" (Rev. 13:14). Together they'll create a counterfeit Kingdom of God.
Beyond Babylon also explains -- FOR THE FIRST TIME -- why there are two witnesses, what their mission and purpose is, why they're stationed in Jerusalem and how they fulfill the Elijah role.
re ‘manifest destiny’. wrong! you need to get your history straight and be very careful here.
Practice what you preach. Both the Bible and history testify to the plain truth of Manifest Destiny.
this idea was a philosophy used to justify the annihilation of native americans.
Was it? Who needed any justification if we truly wanted to commit genocide against those who were occupying the land before the rightful heirs arrived. Did the Americans annihilate the Beringian immigrants (so-called “Native Americans”)? No! We easily could have but we didn’t, so enough of your murderous lies against Joes (Joseph, specifically his son Menashe).
when you use your faulty analogy it opens jews up to being wrongly compared with the colonists. the colonists; however, were inspired by the torah as well as native american governance.
Both the Bible and history testify against your self-righteous rejection of Manifest Destiny, your blindness to Joseph’s identity. Whether or not you choose to remain in denial, both Joes and Jews are colonists, colonizing the lands God has given us, pioneers, settlers (and that’s a GOOD thing contrary to the politically correct cultists who would call good evil and evil good), especially Joseph “to the ends of the Earth.”
The Bible foretold Joseph would branch out with God’s blessing, to colonize and spread out to the far reaches of the Earth as our Great Creator ordained, and the Joes certainly have fulfilled these prophecies!
8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam [even though we're all family],
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel [ethnocentric Bible with its focus on the family of Jacob: everything centers around Israel, nationally, internationally].
“Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well [water], whose branches run over the wall,” (Gen. 49:22).
“His glory is like the firstling [firstborn] of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of an unicorn [the unicorn is in the national seal of England] with them he [Joseph] shall push the people together to the ends of the earth; and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh,” (Deut. 33:13-17).
The Word of God proves Joes were to push out other peoples to make way for our Israelite inheritance, even as the Jews have pushed out some Arabs (but clearly not enough) to secure the Jewish homeland. Why resist the Word and Will of God and cry for pagan Gentiles rather than praise God for blessing Joseph and Judah?
The New South Africa blog attempts to chronicle the extreme violence and secret genocide being committed against the white minority of South Africa. Tens of thousands of whites have been murdered since 1994. Brutal torture and rape is common and not even the young or elderly are spared.
Friday, September 19, 2008
At an international congress to be held in Cologne over the coming weekend, right-wing extremist parties, from several EU nations, will seek to consolidate their cooperation.
American or Israeli patriotism that is of substance is a patriotism based upon a strong biblical foundation, one that firmly believes in Manifest Destiny - whether Manifest Destiny for these “Lands of the Covenant” (Artzot Habrit) promised to B’nai Menashe (Joseph isn’t Jewish!) or Manifest Destiny for the Jewish homeland of Israel (presently held in trust by Judah for all Twelve Tribes of Israel).
Manifest Destiny! Such a spiritual drive and religious motivation works wonders! Without it, our Israelite family of nations are bankrupt and without meaning and purpose, wandering in bewilderment, an easy prey for the German-Assyrian eagle that rises again.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
That you are openly Zionist (Your writings and blog) Leaves me with some intuitive doubts. When a non Jew is holier than Herzl the question comes up Why? It isn’t love for the Jews ( if yes what type of Jew are you referring to?) and except for some geographical sites you probably don’t care much about the Land, O yes the Bible told you so, Right?
I’m sure Christian Zionist Orde Wingate heard such snide comments too, as he lived in Eretz Yisrael (promised to all Twelve Tribes of Israel) and did all he could to help the Jews and didn’t permit the prejudice of some to hinder his God-given purpose.
Christian Zionist Orde Wingate respected Jews but recognized Joseph isn’t Jewish and that family fact, that historical/biblical detail, didn’t disturb those Jews around him with “intuitive doubts,” any more than those Jews on the 8 kibbutzim I’ve lived on (see From Toledo to Jerusalem) or my Torah-observant friends throughout Israel had any problem with my understanding of the Hebrew roots and Israelite origins of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples, and the Israeli leaders didn’t lose sleep over the fact that Herbert W. Armstrong believed the same with whom they met time and again, including former Mayor Teddy Kollek even presenting him (at a banquet in his honor in Jerusalem) with an Israeli sculpture of David (since Kollek knew Armstrong considered himself a scion of David through the British Royal Family).
by Chuck Baldwin
September 17, 2008
On this date in 1787, the U.S. Constitution was adopted. 39 delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies (Rhode Island did not send a representative) affixed their signatures to the greatest civil document ever conceived by men. Famous patriots such as George Washington, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, George Clymer, and Abraham Baldwin were among this gallant group.
Under divine Providence, it has been allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties and protected our very way of life. Most of the problems, failings, and frustrations that plague our nation today are due to the propensity of our civil magistrates to ignore or blatantly abuse constitutional government. Accordingly, fidelity to the Constitution would likely repair most of the damage done by this neglect.
It is the responsibility of a free people to jealously guard the principles upon which their liberties are predicated. For citizens of these United States, the principles that duly protect our liberties are contained in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every American to studiously familiarize himself with these documents.
Furthermore, it is the duty of every American to stubbornly hold their elected representative, at every level of government, accountable to his or her oath to the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the contract that every civil magistrate makes with "We the People." Failure of an elected representative to fulfill that oath to the Constitution should be met with swift and certain rejection by the people at the polls. Nothing else should matter. Republican or Democrat, man or woman, black or white, believer or unbeliever: it is the responsibility of every civil magistrate to submit to the restrictions and instructions of the Constitution.
Our Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) was formed, framed, and founded upon the eternal principles contained in Natural Law, which proceeds forth from man's Creator and Redeemer. No people in human history have ever been so blessed as the people of the United States to inherit such a legacy. Such a heritage serves only to heighten our own responsibility, as "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."
On this Constitution Day of 2008, may this generation of Americans live up to its responsibility to valiantly bequeath to our posterity the same legacy of freedom that was so bravely and miraculously bequeathed to us. For the sake of freedom, for the love of our children, and for the safety and security of our republic, may each of us determine for ourselves--and commit to Almighty God--to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
*If you enjoyed 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:
*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:http://www.baldwin08.com/
© Chuck Baldwin
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Bush’s Luciferian legacy is one that helped put nails in the coffin of our Constitution and launched deliberate attacks against our liberties under Orwellian pretense of “protecting” them; globalist Bush has prepared the wicked way for whatever CFR puppet who follows him to declare martial law without congressional approval or understanding of why for six months (too late when everything will have been “rearranged” as planned and now the law of the land); CFR and globalist banker puppet Bush has murderously lied to the American people and used our loved ones as fodder for the Military Industrial Complex while coddling terrorists in the White House at taxpayers’ expense; rewarded terrorists by expelling Jews rather than sworn Arab enemies from holy land in Israel; has refused to protect our borders or enforce our laws against illegal immigrants; and this is just the tip of the iceberg about to sink our ship if “We The People” don’t cry out to God to save us (2 Chron. 7:14) and do whatever is necessary to save ourselves.
As for the AIDS band-aid and such that only enrich the pharmaceutical drug lords (and whatever kickbacks the president and fellow politicians enjoy from such publicity stunts), why should American taxpayers be forced to care for others when many can’t afford to care for themselves or their loved ones?
Written by Jack Kenny
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s candidate for the presidency, tells where he stands on the issues.
''When Chuck Baldwin is sworn in as president of these United States," says Chuck Baldwin, "the new world order comes crashing down!" The 56-year-old Baptist pastor, columnist, and radio talk-show host has run for elective office only once before, when he was the vice presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004. This year he heads the ticket. Here the presidential candidate discusses the issues and his long-shot campaign.
The New American: Let's begin with a very basic question: why are you running for president?
Chuck Baldwin: I was asked to put my name in nomination by members of the Constitution Party and after a lot of thought and prayer, I decided to do that. At the convention, the delegates selected me by 74 percent to 24 percent over Dr. Alan Keyes and so, obviously, I believe that I am here by the providence of God.
TNA: By what or whose providence, then, are the other candidates in the race?
Baldwin: Well, I'll let them decide that for themselves.
TNA: I've heard you refer to the two major parties as the "big box" parties. Does that mean they're like large retail chains, both selling the same products?
Baldwin: There's no question that, especially in 2008, the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is hard to really notice. I think that's one of the reasons why so many people are interested in our campaign this year, because on so many of the really salient issues of the day, there is virtually no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
TNA: For instance?
Baldwin: Well, immigration. If you look at the issue of illegal immigration, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has any intention of securing America's borders. I will secure the border. That is a commitment. That is a conviction. I think when you look at the way both of the two major parties are facilitating the new world order that's being built, you see that there's no difference, whether it's the NAFTA superhighway, NAFTA, WTO, GATT, the North American community, or the United Nations - there's no difference. Both the Democrats and Republicans, and especially these particular standard-bearers, are championing America's merger into global government. I, on the other hand, am opposed to all that.
I really believe the battle this year is not between Republican and Democrats, it's not between liberals and conservatives, it's between Americans and globalists. And John McCain and Barack Obama are both globalists. And I'm an American. I will put America first.
TNA: Why do you believe we should withdraw from the United Nations?
Baldwin: The United Nations is a sinister organization whose goals and objectives are not the goals and objectives of America. It was started by communists, and it is still pretty much maintained and controlled by communists, Marxists, and socialists of all stripes. It has done nothing for America. It has dominated our foreign policy over the last many decades. It has been the precursor for endless war, nation building, and empire building. It sacrifices our sovereignty, and if I'm president of the United States, we can get out of the United Nations.
TNA: And it would have to get out of the United States?
Baldwin: They would have to look for another home because their rent is up in New York City.
TNA: I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg is aware of that.
Baldwin: Well, I would love to be able to pick up the phone and tell him -personally.
TNA: I've heard you speak very admiringly of one of this year's Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul. Do you agree with him that we should get out of Iraq?
Baldwin: Yes, I do, as soon as possible.
TNA: And Afghanistan?
Baldwin: Yes. As an occupation force, for sure. However, I would seek from Congress passage of Dr. Paul's Marque and Reprisal Act, which would allow the president to use whatever private or other forces are necessary to seek, find, and bring to justice or destroy these rogue terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.
TNA: You said "whatever private or other forces." You would use -mercenaries?
Baldwin: If that was deemed to be in the best interest of the objective, I would not be adverse to that. And also I'm talking about special operation forces that we would have at our disposal and utilizing perhaps friends from foreign forces for whatever accommodations are necessary.
TNA: Should we pull out of all the countries where we have troops stationed? I believe the number is 130.
Baldwin: For the most part, yes, though I would hesitate to say absolutely every place. I would need to analyze all those places, but the vast majority of our foreign bases where American troops are stationed, I would close and bring the troops home.
TNA: From Korea, for example?
Baldwin: Well again, I'm not going to bind myself to specific places at this point without having the opportunity to sit down with our strategists and military commanders and so forth. The Constitution Party is firmly on record as saying that we need to bring our troops home from all parts of the world. We do not need to have troops stationed in 130 countries, that is for sure.
TNA: What do you think of the way the president and the two major party candidates for the office have responded to Russia's invasion of Georgia?
Baldwin: I think it's typical. John McCain is already doing saber rattling, talking about sending troops or the United Nations sending troops or whatever. Two wars is not enough, I guess. Now we want a third war. And then if we attack Iran, we want a fourth war. You get the idea that these guys are hungering and thirsting for war. It's not in America's best interest. The only thing that perpetual war accomplishes is to further facilitate America's entrance into a new world order. Perpetual war is a tool of the globalists to enslave us.
TNA: What about NATO? Should we call an end to that alliance?
Baldwin: Absolutely. We should get out. I think NATO at this point is more of an act of provocation than it is an act of security, and I'm in favor of America getting out of NATO. I would favor disbanding NATO and let the states of Europe decide how they want to defend themselves.
TNA: That position is often called isolationist. How would you define isolationist and are you one?
Baldwin: No, I'm not an isolationist at all. An isolationist, as I understand it, would be someone who wants to cut off any and all communication and discourse and negotiation and trade, etc., with foreign nations and I certainly do not subscribe to that. From the founding, we've been a nation that's sought to be at peace with the nations of the world. I believe in free and fair trade with all nations as much as -possible.
TNA: Are you a free trader or a fair trader, and how do you distinguish between the two?
Baldwin: I believe these free-trade deals, as they are called, are a curse to America. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA, CAFTA - all of them are tools of globalists to sacrifice American independence and sovereignty. They have destroyed our manufacturing base in America. Our manufacturing plants have gone to Mexico, China, and India, thanks to NAFTA and related trade deals. Our economy has been devastated, especially in the Midwest, in places like Michigan and Ohio. There are people working three jobs just to try and put food on the table. It's terrible, and it's a direct result of NAFTA and these other free trade deals that both the Republicans and Democrats collaborated to bring into existence.
TNA: But wasn't it cheaper for companies to manufacure in, say, Mexico or India or wherever before these free trade deals?
Baldwin: In some cases, yes.
TNA: So woudn't it have happened anyway?
Baldwin: There's always going to be a market for foreign countries whenever they're able to compete in an open market. And Americans are going to be willing to pay for those products. We don't have to create free-trade deals that sacrifice American jobs in manufacturing in order to accommodate the quality products they're willing to export to the United States.
TNA: Should we have protective tariffs?
Baldwin: No, I'm not for protective tariffs. First of all, we've got to eliminate the 16th Amendment. And the IRS and the income tax. The second thing I would seek to do would be to eliminate excessive federal spending. I would do what Newt Gingrich promised to do back in 1994 and then failed to do. I would eliminate those same federal departments that he named - the Department of Education, the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Commerce, etc. - as well as the many other agencies where spending could be severely reduced or eliminated altogether. So I would slash federal spending and bring it down to levels that are constitutionally valid.
And what I would propose is an across-the-board, general 10-percent tariff on all imports and that would meet the Constitution's prescription for financing the federal government — duties, imposts, tariffs. And it would supply the needs of a limited federal government, as the constraints of the Constitution require.
TNA: Have you run the numbers on that? Do you have an estimate on how much revenue a 10-percent tariff would bring?
Baldwin: I don't have hard numbers on that.
TNA: Would a 10-percent tariff price any foreign goods out of our market?
Baldwin: I don't see how it could. You now see some of the countries are putting tariffs of 30 percent or more on American goods. It certainly hasn't affected trade from that end. So I can't imagine a 10-percent tariff would price anyone out of existence.
TNA: But how do companies here pay the prevailing wage, meet all the environmental and OSHA regulations, and still compete with companies that are paying workers 58 cents a day or whatever it is in China?
Baldwin: There are far too many government restrictions, mandates, and regulations placed upon business by the federal government. OSHA, for example, is an egregious burden on the backs of industry. When you look at the kinds of rules, regulations, etc. that are placed on companies, all that translates into dollars. I think it's important that we allow companies to be able to compete at pretty much an equal footing, and our government is not doing that. And that is what has created the situation in the minds of many in corporate America that they are not able to do business in America anymore. This is why many of them are forced, or at least they feel forced, out of America and start opening plants in Mexico and elsewhere.
TNA: How would you secure the border?
Baldwin: I would use whatever force is necessary. Our Border Patrol and Customs people are severely outgunned, outmanned, and outequipped. I was shocked when I was on the border to discover that our Border Patrol people do not even have night-vision equipment. They don't have GPS equipment. They're under constant attack from drug traffickers, gang members, and drug dealers who are often equipped with fully automatic weapons. However bad you think it is on the border, it's 10 times worse than that. And George W. Bush takes National Guard troops from America, and he sends them to Iraq and asks them to guard the borders of Iraq. And he leaves American borders wide open. That is absolutely insane as far as I'm concerned.
TNA: The argument is often made that the jobs the illegals are taking are jobs that Americans won't take.
Baldwin: Yeah, Americans won't take those jobs — at 50 cents an hour. My son owns his own construction business and, of course, he obeys the laws of our country. He pays the workers what they're worth. He pays their insurance and Social Security and all the things that he's required to do as an employer. He files their taxes. And then you go down the street and here's another contractor. And he's paying people under the table with cash. He's paying no taxes. He's paying no insurance. And so whenever the two men are called to bid a job, my son's bid is maybe 50 percent higher than the other guy's bid. Well, guess who gets the job. And for the Democrats to say they want illegal aliens because they want their votes and for the Republicans to say they want illegal aliens because they want cheap labor - as far as I am concerned, it is a despicable display of people who are willing to put personal interest above the overall interest of the country.
TNA: As I understand it, you're not against building the fence, but your focus is on increasing the security forces.
Baldwin: That's right. A fence takes a lot of time. A lot of time and a lot of money. And my goal after I'm sworn in as president is having the border secured within 30 days.
TNA: Some have argued that we could do all the drilling we want and it won't lower oil and gas prices for another decade or more, and then only by a few cents. Are they right?
Baldwin: No, I don't think they are right. I do believe that it's critical that we drill. It's critical also that we find alternative energy sources. I believe in solar power and wind power. We need to develop alternative energy sources, there is no question about that.
TNA: Would you favor tax incentives for that?
Baldwin: Yeah, absolutely. But the point is that to say we shouldn't drill because it's not going to help — look, my understanding is that we have more oil available to us under Alaska than we do in the entire country of Saudi Arabia. We've just discovered huge oil deposits, natural-gas deposits, as well as coal in the Dakotas. We know where much of it is in the Gulf of Mexico. We can use shale and so forth to meet our energy needs. All this is available to us right here in this country. I believe we can do it in the next four years, so we would be able to have those energy needs supplied.
TNA: Where do you stand on the war on drugs?
Baldwin: I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do everything in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great.
TNA: As I understand it, U.S. planes are going over and bombing poppy fields and whatever in Colombia and other places. Should we be doing that?
Baldwin: If the government of that country were to ask for the assistance of the United States, in particular where the vested interest of the United States is at stake, then I think that there is consideration there. But if it's a matter of the United States arbitrarily taking upon itself to invade the air space and the sovereign territory of another country to do whatever it wants to do unilaterally, then no. Absolutely not.
TNA: How would you define America's vital interest in terms of whether we should or should not go to war?
Baldwin: Whenever the American people and property are faced with imminent -danger.
TNA: The argument made before we went to war with Iraq was that we can't wait until the danger is imminent.
Baldwin: Well, I disagree with that whole concept. George W. Bush introduced a brand new doctrine to America. It's a doctrine that our Founding Fathers repudiated. It's a doctrine that generations before us historically had repudiated. We have always believed that the only time that war was necessary was whenever the threat was imminent and we had to fight in a defensive, lifesaving situation. The idea that we will attack you first, the idea of a preemptive war on nations, that's brand new to the American nation and something that George Bush and Dick Cheney and his cabal of neocons introduced to the lexicon of our people. And it's a dangerous doctrine because it leads to further expansionism, further adventurism. It leads to further manipulation of foreign affairs. It leads to war, acts of provocation; it creates more crises than it solves. When I'm president, the Bush doctrine on preemptive war will become history.
TNA: You've said you're the only candidate in the race who's 100-percent pro-life. Senator McCain says he is pro-life. Is he somewhat lacking in that regard?
Baldwin: That's putting it mildly. Senator McCain's record on life is like his record on gun control and the Second Amendment. He has come out in favor of embryonic stem-cell research. He has, throughout his career in the Senate, voted for the appropriation of funds for the United Nations. All over the world, the UN is the chief proponent of abortion. He's also voted to appropriate funds for Title 10 funding, which funds abortion on demand, domestically and overseas. President Bush and the Republicans have appropriated more money for Title 10 abortion funding than even President Clinton did when he was in office.
I think the same thing is true for the Second Amendment. The fact is, the Gun Owners of America, if you look at their report, grades (McCain) an "F." It doesn't get any worse than that. John McCain wanted to eliminate the sale of guns at gun shows. He called it the gun-show loophole. Well, the freedom to keep and bear arms is not a loophole. It's a right preserved in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. John McCain doesn't believe that. He is also the one who gave us the McCain-Feingold (Campaign Reform Act), which is one of the most unconstitutional, anti-First Amendment pieces of legislation that I can ever recall.
TNA: One reason many people who believe as you do and might want to vote for you end up voting for the "lesser of two evils" is that they believe, especially on the right to life, they've at least got a better chance to get some good Supreme Court nominees out of the Republican nominee for president than they would under the Democrat.
Baldwin: Well, first of all, the Republican Party has dominated the Supreme Court nominations ever since Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was a majority Republican-appointed court that passed the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. The Republicans hold the majority on the court today. The idea that by electing Republicans you can get constitutionalist/pro-life justices is a joke. John McCain, in particular, is the same man who voted for Stephen Breyer. This is the same senator who voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Anyone who thinks that by voting for John McCain you're going to get strict constructionist, conservative justices on the court is living in a fantasy world.
TNA: Now the man you defeated for the Conservative Party nomination, former Ambassador Alan Keyes is out there running for president. He's 100-percent pro-life, isn't he?
Baldwin: Yes, as far as I know, he is. But how can he turn around and support the United Nations, which he does? That I find, again, paradoxical. I really don't understand how you can be pro-life and support an organization that is concretely pro-abortion. I believe that position is one of the reasons why I was given the votes at the nominating convention instead of Alan.
TNA: Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?
Baldwin: Yes, I do. That's why I'm not a libertarian. Historically, libertarians believe in open borders. Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don't subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on "gay" marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, has supported the Patriot Act. Of course, he's said he has serious problems with that now. I opposed it from the beginning and I would seek to eliminate the Patriot Act if I were president.
TNA: Your website cites a poll that purports to show that 47 percent of the voters said they would be willing to support a third-party candidate this year.
Baldwin: That was a Fox News survey, that's right.
TNA: But you're out there and Bob Barr is out there and Alan Keyes is out there. The folks on the right who are dissatisfied with what the Republicans and Democrats are offering are split in so many different directions. Isn't there some way to get them all together?
Baldwin: Well, they could all vote for me. And you know, ballot access is a major factor. We plan on being on the ballot in over 40 states. Libertarians will probably be on the ballot in over 40 states. Alan Keyes will be on the ballot probably in no more than two or three states. So when you look at ballot access, there are really only a few players. How many will have the opportunity to gain 270 electoral votes? When you look at it that way, it's the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party - and that's about it.
TNA: What percentage of the population do you believe is not yet aware that Chuck Baldwin is running for president?
Baldwin: You tell me.
TNA: I would guess it's 90 some-odd percent. And you're almost locked out when running as a third party in terms of media attention. Do you really believe you can be elected president this year?
Baldwin: Yes, I do. And I say that because I don't believe in chance and I don't believe in luck. I believe in Divine Providence and, you know, anything can happen. If you could have asked the Founding Fathers what chance they had in their effort to break free from the greatest military power in the world, Great Britain - what would their answer have been? If you were an oddsmaker in Las Vegas, what kind of odds would you have given Washington and Jefferson? They had no chance as chances go. But in the providence of God, we know what happened.
And my favorite quotation is from John Quincy Adams, who said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." And that's all any of us can do, just do our duty And that's what I'm doing in 2008. I was called to this and I'm doing my duty. I've answered my country's call. And what God chooses to do with this act of duty is up to Him.
''When Chuck Baldwin is sworn in as president of these United States," says Chuck Baldwin, "the new world order comes crashing down!"
For those who need to know what constitutes "the new world order," or for those who could use a forceful reminder, view this:
"Stop being good Democrats...Stop being good Republicans...and start being Good Americans." I just finished watching the disturbing film - "America: Freedom to Fascism" and encourage all my fellow American citizens to do the same, think about it, talk about, and act accordingly, so help us God.
by Chuck Baldwin
September 16, 2008
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate to ABC's Charles Gibson last week. Her answers were very troubling, especially to those of us who believe in constitutional government. On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote Bush's preemptive war doctrine.
Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is. Gibson asked: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" Palin's response: "In what respect, Charlie?" Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.
When Gibson properly defined the Bush doctrine as being the determination of President Bush to unilaterally, preemptively launch anticipatory military attacks and invasions against foreign countries (without a Declaration of War from Congress, I might add), Palin said the President "has the obligation, the duty" to launch such attacks. No wonder John McCain likes her so much.
Palin went on to make further statements that must have made John McCain proud. When asked if she would be willing to take America to war with Russia in order to defend Georgia, she responded by saying, "Perhaps so."
Egad! Do John McCain and Sarah Palin envision--even desire--war with Russia? John McCain is already on record as supporting sending troops to Georgia; now Sarah Palin suggests that even war with Russia is a possibility. Over what? Has Russia deployed troops along our borders? Has Russia threatened to invade the United States? Are McCain and Palin truly willing to launch a war with a nation that has thousands of ICBMs in its nuclear arsenal, when our own security has not been threatened? And just how many other countries are McCain and Palin willing to defend with American toil and blood? All of Europe?
Instead of promoting European states such as Georgia joining NATO, America should promote dismantling NATO. The reason for NATO's existence ended when the cold war with the former Soviet Union ended. It is past time for European states to take responsibility for their own defense. To promote American hegemony in Russia's backyard (which is exactly what we are doing by promoting the expansion of NATO) not only serves to reignite the cold war, it could inflame an all-out, very hot war. Is this what McCain and Palin want?
With Palin's willingness to launch a possible war with Russia, I suppose it is a small thing that she has no problem with the United States invading smaller countries such as Pakistan. To quote Sarah Palin, "We have got to have all options out there on the table."
Many people familiar with John McCain have tried to warn the American people about the warmongering, hot-tempered senator. To quote one of McCain's fellow POWs, Phillip Butler (who was a POW for 8 years, 2 1/2 years longer than McCain), "I can verify that John [McCain] has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger I want next to that red button."
Only one time during Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson did she refer to the U.S. Constitution, constitutional government, or her responsibility as Vice President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is very troubling. Can it be that Sarah Palin is simply another politician who is ignorant and unconcerned regarding constitutional government? If so, the fact that she is a social conservative would make this dereliction no less egregious.
Speaking of social conservatism, Sarah Palin's response to Charles Gibson's question regarding abortion is also troubling. Everyone knows that John McCain is extremely weak on the life issue. He openly and repeatedly supported embryonic stem cell research. Ms. Palin says she opposes it. So, how would this conflict affect her position as McCain's Vice President? It wouldn't.
According to Palin, she would not let a "personal opinion" interfere with a McCain administration's policy that differed from hers. In other words, she would support McCain's pro-embryonic stem cell research decisions. I am sure this would also be true as John McCain increases federal funding for abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, which is something that McCain has also repeatedly done. Pray tell, how many other "personal opinions" is Sarah Palin willing to sacrifice in order to be John McCain's running mate? Already my previous column's cogitations are being borne out. ( http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080903.html )
Since my last column, I have discovered that Sarah Palin did nothing to prevent the state of Alaska from being a sanctuary state for illegal aliens. The La Frontera web site ( http://lafrontera.mojo4m.com/2167/ ) credits Lou Dobbs as noting that, according to an August 14, 2006 report by the Congressional Research Service, at least two Alaskan cities have don't ask, don't tell sanctuary policies in place for illegal aliens: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Beyond that, Alaska has a statewide policy that forbids state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law.
It makes perfect sense that Sarah Palin would embrace (or do nothing to oppose) John McCain's pro-illegal immigration policy, as this is one of the issues he is most passionate about. It is absolutely inconceivable that John McCain would ever select a running mate that did not share (or that would oppose) his pro-illegal immigration convictions.
Of course, Charles Gibson never bothered to inquire concerning Sarah Palin's attitudes toward the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), free trade deals (such as NAFTA, FTAA, etc.), the burgeoning North American Community, the NAFTA superhighway, etc. It really doesn't matter. I think we all know where Governor Palin comes down on all of the above. She will continue to support America's participation in and financial support for the U.N.; she will, as former Presidents and Vice Presidents have done, ingratiate herself with the CFR. Good grief! Her boss, John McCain, is a longstanding member of the CFR. She will enthusiastically support free trade deals, which destroy American jobs and encroach upon American independence and sovereignty; she will not oppose the North American Community, or any other form of globalism. And if called on, she will promote the NAFTA superhighway.
In other words, Sarah Palin will offer no resistance to the escalating New World Order (America's greatest threat), her conservative leanings on social issues notwithstanding.
Sarah Palin's answers did reveal one positive: she seems to be solid on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is encouraging, because with the way that both Republicans and Democrats are leading America, it may not be long before we will need to actually exercise that right.
*If you enjoyed 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:
© Chuck Baldwin
If I Were the President by Chuck Baldwin
Due to my frequent criticisms of President George W. Bush, I am often asked what I would do if I were President of these United States. This column will serve as an attempt to answer that question.
Hitler Will Judge Us!
It used to be a country’s worst enemies who ripped up their pregnant women—now we’ve turned on ourselves. Don't abort our future: Think twice, choose life, let love grow.
A long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), John McCain will pursue the goals and ambitions of the globalists with a vengeance. As Pat Buchanan said recently, "John McCain will make Dick Cheney look like Gandhi." Buchanan is right on with that prediction.
May 1: Illegal Immigration Day Defused!
May we turn from our NATIONAL SINS of idolatry and immorality that the CURSE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION comes to its swift end (Daniel 9:11).
Death to America: Major American Cities Targeted by Terrorists?
Will Providence permit foreign murderers in our midst (in attitude, if not yet in action) to unleash nuclear fires within our major cities? Will militant minorities work with them against us? Won't our British-Israelite brethren suffer the same within their respective biblical inheritances?