Friday, October 30, 2009

Alternative to UN (YouTube Video)

An Alternative to the UN
The hypocritical UN, that diseased body of the dysfunctional family of nations, is worthless except as a polluted podium for the sworn enemies of freedom, righteousness and democracy.

(read more ...)

Climate Change Treaty A Precursor To Global Government?

by Chuck Baldwin
October 30, 2009

Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi states, "A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government."

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

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

See Corsi's column at:

To see a YouTube video segment of Lord Monckton's address go to:

Plus, here is a later Fox Business interview with Lord Monckton, in which he further expands his thoughts:

Did Lord Monckton exaggerate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as


An Alternative to the UN

The hypocritical UN, that diseased body of the dysfunctional family of nations, is worthless except as a polluted podium for the sworn enemies of freedom, righteousness and democracy.

It would have been well for the United States to have expelled the accursed UN from off our sacred soil of liberty years ago rather than empower them with a voice and credibility they clearly do not deserve.

The affirmative action UN has dumbed down and endangered the world and we have aided and abetted their terrorism against Judeo-Christian civilization.

The UN is an assault against those biblical values we hold dear, an insult to the ideals we championed: In the words of Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, …”the Charter of the United Nations reflected our national optimism and our predilection for faith in good works. It was idealistic to the point of utopianism. …And it was doomed from the start.”

Remember when Chuck Lichenstein, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and deputy to Ambassador Kirkpatrick soundly remarked: “If, in the judicious determination of the members of the United Nations, they feel they are not welcome and treated with the hostly consideration that is their due, the United States strongly encourages member states to consider seriously removing themselves and this organization from the soil of the United States. We will put no impediment in your way, and we will be at the dockside bidding you farewell as you set off into the sunset"?

I disagree they were due anything but utmost contempt, abusing the good graces and naive hospitality of We The People of these United States.

Even as many are recognizing the desperate need for an alternative to the highly discredited Nobel Peace Prize, irreparably tarnished by leftists, proposing the Reagan Prize - it is imperative for the English-speaking nations of white Israelites to forge a more perfect union than the Gentile-dominated UN to advance our cause and secure our rights.

Cecil Rhodes was correct when he stated: "I contend that we are the first race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race." Of course, inspired men like Rhodes were instrumental in fulfilling prophecies about British-Israelites (Ephraim), the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples,  inheriting the ends of the Earth. Israel in the Isles was driven by Manifest Destiny to settle and colonize our God-given inheritances, as the American people (Manasseh) claimed our God-given inheritance from sea to shining sea.

Rhodes' ideal of an English-speaking union of nations has been corrupted by godless globalists, his plans perverted, nevertheless it stands as a springboard for ideas we must seriously consider, so help us God.

Whether our white Israelite nations, including our Jewish brethren, amend our ways and work together for our common good, remembering our Hebrew roots and biblical responsibilities, we are reassured by the words of the Prophets that we shall ultimately, collectively, serve as One Nation Under God: a truly United Kingdom.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Updates On Hardin, Montana, And China Flag Flap by Chuck Baldwin, October 27, 2009

By Chuck Baldwin

October 27, 2009

In recent columns, I have reported on both the attempted takeover of the Hardin, Montana, jail facility by a private mercenary force and a Chinese story that the White House would fly the Communist Chinese flag in honor of the 60th anniversary of Mao's revolution of 1949, which brought the Reds to power (initially killing as many as 3 million Chinese people, and resulting in the deaths of more than 50 million people during those 60 years).

See those columns at:

I promised readers that I would keep an eye out for these stories and provide necessary updates. Well, here are those updates.

The Hardin, Montana, Update:
On Friday, October 9, the private mercenary company that had attempted to take over the Hardin jail facility, American Police Force (APF), announced that it was pulling out of negotiations on contracts with the Two Rivers Authority (the economic development arm of the city of Hardin) to operate the facility. This announcement was made after my column was released and many other news sources, Internet bloggers, and talk radio hosts blitzed the story to the public. We showed how APF's frontman, Serbian immigrant Michael Hilton, had a criminal record, and is, in fact, currently facing criminal charges for fraud in California. We also reported that APF had fraudulently attempted to identify itself as the "City of Hardin Police Department" by patrolling Hardin's streets with Mercedes-Benz SUVs with Hardin police markings stenciled on the sides of the vehicles. (The city of Hardin does not have a police department. The city is policed by the Big Horn County Sheriff's Office.)

On October 15, the Flathead (County) Beacon reported that the company's former attorney took the last two Mercedes SUVs brought to Hardin by APF. "Becky Shay, APF spokeswoman, says she gave the keys to Maziar Mafi on Tuesday," reported the Beacon. Shay said Mafi was the guarantor on the vehicles' purchase.

In the meantime, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock has launched an investigation into the Hardin matter. According to the AG's office, the investigation is predicated upon concerns that the company might be violating the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. As far as I know, that investigation is ongoing.

On October 15, the Flathead Beacon also reported, "Officials in the rural town of Hardin say they've received new interest in their empty, 464-bed jail in the wake of [the] collapsed deal with a California company run by a man with a history of fraud.

"Saying there's 'no such thing as bad publicity,' Al Peterson with the city's economic development agency says at least four corrections corporations and agencies have asked for more information about the facility.

"Peterson, who is also superintendent of Hardin schools, declined to offer more details. He also acknowledged the city's two-year effort to fill the jail suffered a major setback from its dealings with Santa Ana-based American Police Force."

If you would like to learn a little more about what goes on behind the scenes in these Hardin-type fiascos, here is a web article well worth your attention. It reveals how unscrupulous private developers prey on small, impoverished towns.

The Red Chinese Flag Flap Update:
As I reported in my initial column regarding this event, "According to China Daily, 'Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President's residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC [People's Republic of China] . . .'"

Whether China Daily misconstrued the story, or the White House changed its mind under pressure regarding allowing the communist flag to fly over the South Lawn, the Red Chinese flag did indeed fly near the White House, but not over the South Lawn.

According to World Net Daily (September 21, 2009), "The flag of the communist Chinese regime has been raised over festivities near the White House honoring the restrictive nation's 60th anniversary, according to videos posted on YouTube as well as reports from the Chinese Central television network's English-language report."

The Communist flag flew over the Ellipse, the public area adjacent to the President's residence. Here is the YouTube video report of the Red flag event:

Here is the World Net Daily report:

If that isn't bad enough, New York's Empire State Building lit up red and yellow on Wednesday, September 30 "in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China." (Source: AFP News)

According to AFP News, "The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People's Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement."

So, yes, Martha, the communist Chinese flag did indeed fly near the White House, and in addition, New York's Empire State Building lit up in the colors of the communist flag to honor the Bloody Butchers of Beijing. Incredible!
Then again, maybe we should not be so surprised. Washington, D.C., and Wall Street have long been coddling and colluding with the communist Chinese. That both cities would honor the communist flag (under which tens of thousands of Americans have been killed) seems consistent with their penchant for turning America into a socialist police State. And if our Founding Fathers had not established the deep-rooted freedom-principle extolling the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is very likely that the communist flag would have already been flying over the White House--as well as above every schoolyard in America.

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Families and Nations

Out of Order - the Systematic Destruction of Families and Nations

The Rise and Fall and Rise of Motherhood in America
Only women can be mothers. Have we forgotten this fundamental?

The godless Left does all it can to destroy the family (with its God-ordained roles for men and women), and it is exacerbated by "religious" comrades who blather we're all "equal" and incite women to rebel and pressure men to just be passive about it.

Races and genders must be reminded and restored to their proper places (Titus 2:3-5, Deuteronomy 32:8), since the chaos and confusion evident in society and our wayward world proves such a dysfunctional "freedom" enslaves all and would be the death of us all if God doesn't intervene and liberate mankind from political error and religious lies (Malachi 4:4-6).

Mama Evans
Erma Evans, a widow in the Church of God, served as a perfect example of what the apostle Paul called for from our senior women (Titus 2:3).

God Doesn't Ordain Women Preachers!
I just read an abominable article written by a proud and stubborn woman attempting to justify rebellious women doing what only God has ordained men to do: preach from the pulpit as ordained ministers.

Diversity Demands: Segregate Now!
The more white Israelite people try to ignore the issues of race, the more race will get in our face (Daniel 9:11). It is in the best interests of every race to SEGREGATE NOW.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . .

by Chuck Baldwin October 20, 2009
I originally published this column back in January of 2005. Since then (and especially lately), many people have called and written with requests to republish it. So, with a few minor revisions, here it is.

More than thirty years as a student of American history, constitutional government, and the Holy Bible leads me to the conviction that the two major political parties in this country (at the national level) are equally culpable in stripping America of its founding principles. In my opinion, both the Democrat and Republican parties in Washington, D.C., have zero fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and zero respect for America's foundational precepts.

In my studied opinion, neither the Democrat nor Republican Party (at the national level) has any intention of slowing the out-of-control expansion of government. Neither party has demonstrated any loyalty to preserving and protecting our constitutional form of government.

Like National Socialists and Soviet Socialists of old, the only thing that concerns Democrats and Republicans today is who is in power. Both are equally willing to destroy the freedoms and liberties of people without conscience or regret as long as their party remains in control.
I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America's current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America's founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three "separate but equal" branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People.

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

9. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral, and, along with the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, should be abolished.

10. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery; or to tell a Pace, Florida, high school principal that he could not pray before a meal.

11. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that Congress or the White House or any sovereign State is not required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.

12. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that freedom has nothing in common with illegal immigration.

13. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that outsourcing American jobs overseas is not good for America.

14. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the United States should get out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

15. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.

16. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the Boy Scouts are not a threat to America.

17. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government should honor its commitments to America's veterans and stop using U.S. military personnel as guinea pigs for testing drugs and chemicals.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

19. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

20. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that federal agents who murder American citizens should be held to the same laws and punishments that any other citizen would be held to. (Can anyone say, "Waco" and "Ruby Ridge"?)

21. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA (and similar agreements) are disastrous compromises of America's national sovereignty and independence.

22. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see congressmen and senators be required to actually read a bill before passing it into law.

23. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that it is the job of government to protect and secure God-given rights, not use its power to take those rights away.

24. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that there is nothing unconstitutional about the public acknowledgement of God and our Christian heritage.

25. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that government bailouts and "stimulus" expenditures defy virtually every principle of free enterprise and are a flagrant leap into socialism.

26. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that airport screeners have no business touching women's breasts, using sophisticated machinery to look through passengers' clothing to see their naked bodies, confiscating fingernail clippers, or denying pilots from carrying handguns.

27. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that many public schools' "zero-tolerance" policies are just plain stupid.

28. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that parents have a right to homeschool their children.

29. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that governmental seizure of private property is plain, old-fashioned thievery.

30. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are personally determined to not submit to any kind of forced vaccination.

31. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose any kind of national health insurance.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

33. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer of his district and that federal law enforcement (much of which is unconstitutionally organized, anyway) is obligated to submit to his authority.

34. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are determined to oppose America's merger with any kind of regional, hemispheric, or international government, such as the North American Union.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

36. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to meet one single congressman or senator besides Ron Paul who acts as if he or she has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

Well, how did you fare? Are you a Constitutionalist? If so, your country desperately needs you to stand up and fight for freedom's principles before they are forever taken from us. This means never again voting for anyone--from any party--who will not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, don't just take the test; make the pledge!

*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:
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as

Monday, October 19, 2009

Obama Under Oath: Status Report

From The Desk Of Gary G. Kreep

Dear Concerned Friend,

Barack Obama is sweating it out after his Department of Justice ("DOJ") attorneys walked into court expecting United States Federal District Court Judge David Carter to dismiss the birth certificate case. Why you ask? Simply because they "think" Obama is President. Their arguments were hollow and unconvincing. and after hearing hours of argument, the Judge Carter "took the matter under submission." He has still not issued a ruling, 10 days later!

Is The President Above The Law and the Courts?

DOJ attorneys tried to explain to the Judge that no Court in the United States had the jurisdiction to rule on whether Barack Hussein Obama was eligible to serve as President of the United States? In their view he could only be impeached and/or disqualified from the Office of President under the 25th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

NOT TRUE! USJF pointed out to the Court that both the impeachment statutes, and the 25th Amendment required a sitting President, but if Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as President, he could not be, and never was, a sitting President, so those options for removal could not apply. Therefore the courts would have jurisdiction.


Monday, October 5, 2009, , at 8:30 a.m., in California, was a critical milestone for our entire legal and public relations effort to force Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate and to prove whether he is eligible to serve as President of the United States. And with your support USJF was able to be there to argue the case.

The case has an excellent chance to survive the Department of Justice ("DOJ") motion to dismiss what has proven to be the best chance for America to have a hearing on the merits of this critical Constitutional issue.

What happened that day in Court? It's very simple—the DOJ attorneys brought up every argument that they could to try to persuade the Court to dismiss this case

USJF provided sound legal arguments against the DOJ legal theories; otherwise the whole case could have been over right then and there! The USJF oral arguments will be the difference between this case surviving or being dismissed.

The Judge raised issues critical to our case:

1. Did Senators question the eligibility of Mr. Obama? (Only Senators Coburn and Shelby and a number of House members.)

2. Were objections made by Members of Congress when the vote of the Electoral College was certified? (NO, then Vice-President Cheney had not performed his required duty of asking for objections, so there could have been none raised.)

DOJ attorneys argued that only Congress, and/or the Electoral College, could decide on the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Fortunately, the USJF legal team filed pleadings pointing out that the DOJ legal arguments in this regard WERE WRONG! And, I was there to argue against those claims.

People at the hearing and those who have found out what happened there since have been contacting USJF, thanking us for standing up for the truth!

But the fight is not over yet! We expect a ruling from the Court any day now. If we defeat the dismissal motion, then we're immediately filing pleadings ("discovery") seeking Mr. Obama's birth certificate, his college records, and so much more. AND, we'll be seeking to depose Mr. Obama ASAP!

And if the Court grants the motion to dismiss, we'll be immediately filing an appeal of the decision!

But we can only do this if we have your financial support!

Judge Carter has set a trial date of January 26, 2010 in this case. To keep that date, we need to defeat the DOJ dismissal motion, and then, IMMEDIATELY, move right into the discovery phase discussed above. BUT THAT WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND WE WILL NEED TO:
  • Retain attorneys in Washington, D. C., to take the Obama deposition.
  • Retain attorneys in Hawaii to take the deposition of those in control of the Obama birth records and school records.
  • Take the deposition of Occidental, College officials to obtain Obama school records
  • We will have to retain attorneys in Massachusetts to take the deposition of Harvard. Law School officials to obtain Obama school records.
  • Pay the cost of the court reporters for all of these depositions. Plus,
  • Pay the cost of serving the subpoenas on the various witnesses.


We expect the DOJ, as well as Mr. Obama's private attorneys, to fight us every step of the way! Obama attorneys will file motions to block the depositions in each and every state, and the District of Columbia by the Obama defense team!

  • Question the issue of the passport files of Mr. Obama! We're going to be going after the records of how he traveled abroad without a United States Passport in the 1980's, as he admits doing.
  • Question the issue of his alleged adoption by his step-father in Indonesia! We'll be seeking records about that also!
  • Resolve questions about his Selective Service files! We'll be seeking records concerning that also!
But, first, we have to get past the DOJ dismissal motion!

The DOJ's motion to dismiss also claims that our clients have no "standing," that the Federal Court does not have "jurisdiction" to hear this case, and that the matter is "political."

But, if we as citizens of the United States have no "standing" to verify the citizenship of the man occupying the White House, who does? If our Federal Courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case, who does? It's not a "political" question, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL question!

Last November, people said we were crazy to pursue this issue. Now, we've been shown to be right in our pursuit of the truth. It's not just the original birth certificate that they're refusing to release. Barack Obama's legal team has spent, according to published reports, over $1.4 million dollars so far to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, and many other documents.

WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove he is a natural-born citizen and therefore qualified to be president -- especially his actual birth certificate?

When Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency.

Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a "natural born citizen."

What's more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility.

This crisis must be ended! And it must be ended NOW!


And that's just what we're fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution... and your liberty.

We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We are speaking of filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above the dozens already filed, if you will help us today.

Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States?

Our country is on the fast track to disaster... but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I'll hear from you today.


Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation

P.S. This is the biggest political cover-up in American history! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE Obama is a natural-born citizen… IF THEY HAD THE DOCUMENTS!

America has never before faced such a threat. Everything we hold dear is at risk with Barack Obama sitting as President without him releasing his actual birth certificate, plus the dozens of other documents that he refuses to produce.

Please remember that we are fighting in the California Appellate Court system.

Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can get away with DUPING the American people and DESTROYING the U.S. Constitution. DON'T LET HIM DO IT! Please, make your best possible contribution to USJF today:


To donate by check, please mail to:
United States Justice Foundation
National Processing Center
PO Box 131637
Dept Code 3114
Houston, TX 77219-1637

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a non-profit organization, whose tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(3) has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Your contributions are tax deductible. Corporate contributions may be accepted.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Freedom's Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction

by Chuck Baldwin's Son: Timothy Baldwin
October 16, 2009

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also regarded as one of America's leading spokesmen for State sovereignty.]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a "more perfect union" (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed--a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?

The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to "negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union." (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.

History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15)

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America's history and the US Constitution would say, "The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress' power to reach the internal affairs of a State." It is the "living Constitution" idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution. Interestingly, the "living Constitution" idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional "construction" that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The "living Constitution" idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America's War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a "living Constitution" begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution's framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the "ARM" of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.

Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states' right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere "bait and switch" rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government's interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.

Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the "supreme law of the land." Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America's earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.

But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted--not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the "supreme law of the land" and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed "supremacy" clause of the Constitution. What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery.

America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive "construction." If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers' form of government? Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!

In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the "more perfect union" of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a "more perfect union" as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!

Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution's ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism--the principles upon which America was founded--then this supposed federal power of constitutional "construction" will in fact be our freedom's destruction.

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

Arrest the bastard!

Obama's Achilles heel - Natural Born Citizenship
What is a Natural Born Citizen? For well over a year now, we have been hearing this question in regards to Barack Obama. It’s a good question, and one that is relevant only when discussing the President, Vice President, and anyone else who may assume the Presidency in the line of succession. This the only time that such a distinction matters.It will help in this very important discussion to understand the differing types of Citizenship that the United States recognizes and what defines them.A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US ...


The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama is clearly not a natural born citizen of two American parents. The sooner the bastard is arrested and put on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors, the better, so help us God!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

These Are Not Negotiable

by Chuck Baldwin
October 13, 2009

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies."

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured "patient sufferance." For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother's permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering "a long train of abuses and usurpations." In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing--no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred--that we will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean "absolute Despotism" and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be "thrown off."

*The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom, becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36) This we will do--at all costs.

*The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses, "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it." (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by another's leave. This we will not do.

*The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family. This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume. "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeshooling or private/parochial/Christian schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history, most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children. Any government--federal, State, or local--that forbids, or even restricts, the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the uniform of a tyrant.

*The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45; John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men's thoughts and beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent press among the mainstream news media today. In fact, the major media more resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today. They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

*The Right to Determine One's Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care (and in some cases, even death). President Obama's universal health care initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose to seek God's healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won't be long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the federal government will be America's doctor. This is not acceptable.

*The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as the Source and Sustainer of man's existence. Therefore, evils such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state of war.

*The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable. As Jefferson said, we are "disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable." But cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

Monday, October 12, 2009

Proof Positive

Friday, October 9, 2009

Hardin, Montana

Hardin, Montana May Be Staging Area For United Nations Civilian Police,, October 7, 2009

Hardin, Montana Update: AG Launches Probe by Michelle Malkin, October 2, 2009

APF Changes Name, Logo & Website To “Diffuse Tension”,, October 5, 2009

APF Spokeswoman Breaks Down During Press Conference,, October 3, 2009

Mysterious Private Security Firm Gets Control Of Empty Jail In Small Montana Town, TPM, September 30, 2009

Hardin Jail Deal Delayed Amid Controversy, Flathead Beacon, October 5, 2009

Private Corporation Takes Over Policing, Incarcerating In Montana Town by Jim Kouri, October 4, 2009

Exposed: American Police Force Is A Blackwater Front Group,, October 1, 2009

Hardin Jail Operators Detail Plans For Training Facility, Expansion, The Billings Gazette, September 26, 2009

Hardin Jail Project Begins To Unravel, Flathead Beacon, October 3, 2009

APF Head Hilton Has History Of Legal Trouble, Billings Gazette, September 30, 2009

Hardin Jail Entrepreneur Has Checkered Past, Flathead Beacon, September 30, 2009

Hardin, Montana Town Officials Hornswoggled By American Police Force,, October 2, 2009

Montana AG Launches Probe Of Jail Deal, CNBC, October 1, 2009
Montana Town Occupied By Private Paramilitary Security Force,, September 29, 2009

Hardin Montana - Police State In AMERICA! WARNING!,, September 29, 2009



By Chuck Baldwin
October 9, 2009

Fans of the CBS-terminated TV series JERICHO will recognize the name "Ravenwood." This was the ruthless mercenary force used by the illegitimate federal government at Cheyenne to subjugate the citizens of Kansas in the aftermath of a massive nuclear attack against two dozen American cities. As with much of JERICHO's superbly written story line, Ravenwood reflected real-world entities. Private mercenary forces have been used extensively throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as in many other theaters. And as JERICHO correctly depicted, these "private contractors" have largely operated without oversight or accountability. (Can anyone say, "Blackwater"?) For the most part, the American people are unfamiliar with these mercenary forces, because they normally operate in foreign theaters of war. JERICHO put them on the streets of U.S. cities. Now it looks like JERICHO was more prophecy than fiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock has launched an investigation into the Hardin matter. According to the AG's office, the investigation is predicated upon concerns that the company might be violating the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

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

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

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

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

See Kouri's column here.

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

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

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

Stay alert, America: your town could be next.

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

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved