More On Internment Camps

More On Internment Camps
by Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2009


A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.html

I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?

Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it at

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292

Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/04/16/news/news1.txt

Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé" published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report at

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4312850.html

Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.

One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.

"We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis added.)

(To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites:

http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )

Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.

Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments at

http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law

And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations"? See the report at

http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps

Is all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?

On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late" to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.

For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/11/p27662

http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps

http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)

Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.

Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.

Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."

(See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )

As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.

In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"

Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."

Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.' They DO exist."

Flynn replied, "They do."

(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )

Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.

America's founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms--even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you've lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.

*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

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090828.html

Conservatives Lost More Than An Election

Conservatives Lost More Than An Election
by Chuck Baldwin
November 7, 2008

That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He didn't. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a "wasted" vote, was it not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did. The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives.

For all intents and purposes, conservatism--as a national movement--is completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed conservatism in America.

Soon after G.W. Bush was elected, it quickly became obvious he was no conservative. On the contrary, George Bush has forever established himself as a Big-Government, warmongering, internationalist neocon. Making matters worse was the way Bush presented himself as a conservative Christian. In fact, Bush's portrayal of himself as a conservative Christian paved the way for the betrayal and ultimate destruction of conservatism (something I also predicted years ago). And the greatest tragedy of this deception is the way that Christian conservatives so thoroughly (and stupidly) swallowed the whole Bush/McCain neocon agenda.

For example, Bush and his fellow neocons like to categorize and promote themselves as being "pro-life," but they have no hesitation or reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in reckless and unconstitutional foreign wars. By the same token, how many unborn babies were saved by six years of all three branches of the federal government being under the control of these "pro-life" neocons? Not one! Ask the more than eight million unborn babies who were killed in their mothers' wombs during the last eight years how "pro-life" George W. Bush and John McCain are.

As a result of this insanely inconsistent and pixilated punditry, millions of Americans now laugh at the very notion of "pro-life" conservatism. Bush and McCain have made a mockery of the very term.

Consider, too, the way Bush and McCain have allowed the international bankers on Wall Street to bilk America's taxpayers out of trillions of dollars. Yes, I know Obama also supported the Wall Street bailout, but it was the Republican Party that controlled the White House for the last eight years and the entire federal government for six out of the last eight years. In fact, the GOP has won seven out of the previous ten Presidential elections. They have controlled Supreme Court appointments for the past thirty-plus years. They have appointed the majority of Treasury secretaries and Federal Reserve chairmen. They have presided over the greatest trade imbalances, the biggest deficits, the biggest spending increases, and now the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.

Again, the American people look at these so-called "conservatives" and laugh. No wonder such a sizeable majority of voters yawned when John McCain tried to scare them by accusing Barack Obama of being a "big taxer." How can one possibly scare people with a charge like that after the GOP has made a total mockery of fiscal conservatism? That's like trying to scare someone coming out from a swim in the Gulf of Mexico with a squirt gun.

Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as John McCain.

But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives--especially Christian conservatives--surrendered their principles for the sake of political partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!

In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S. Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.

The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.

Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey Graham, of course.

Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham! No matter. A majority of evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted for Graham.

Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth, and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.

Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W. Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to blame but themselves.

And since it is unlikely that the Republican Party has enough sense to understand any of this and will, therefore, do little to reestablish genuine conservative principles, it is probably best to just go ahead and bury the scoundrels now and move on to something else. Without a sincere commitment to constitutional government, the GOP has no justifiable reason to ever govern again. Therefore, put a fork in them. They are done. Let a new entity arise from the ashes: one that will stand for something more than just "the lesser of two evils." As we say in the South, That dog just won't hunt anymore.

© Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin has never claimed to be a white supremacist

Re: Obama's Dark Heart

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Meert
Wow, a white supremacist voting for a white supremacist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Define white supremacist. Can you? Or do you just spew stereotypes? Not all white supremacists are the same - any more than professing Christians, Jews, Republicans or Democrats or Afro-centrics, etc.

I know I'm a white supremacist, like *Abraham Lincoln (loving my own race and others races too enough to want proper white rule rather than black misrule like raped Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe ruins - and besieged South Africa suffers from).

Chuck Baldwin has never claimed to be a white supremacist.

It's sad that there are so many white defeatists, who suffer from an imposed "white guilt" (which is why most of them have been manipulated into voting for that fraud and foreigner Obama, as Black conservative Shelby Steele has revealed) and go against common sense and betray their own people.

*Abraham Lincoln Was A White Supremacist

"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
- Abraham Lincoln

__________________
Fighting for the Faith once delivered to Jerusalem

Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul

Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul
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

Chuck Baldwin on George Putnam

I Will Miss George Putnam
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

Countering for the Constitution (Interview with Chuck Baldwin)

Countering for the Constitution
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.

Interview of Chuck Baldwin by Jack Kenny

******************

''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:

Award-Winning Film Maker Says US Is Becoming Police State

Can Two Walk Together Without Agreement?

Can Two Walk Together Without Agreement?
by Chuck Baldwin
September 3, 2008

John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate was exactly what he needed to do to make himself competitive against Barack Obama in the November elections. (For the record, I predicted three weeks ago that Palin would be his choice.) As a result (and right on cue), conservatives throughout the country--especially Christian conservatives--are now fully supporting McCain's candidacy for President. Even James "I-will-never-vote-for-John-McCain" Dobson has endorsed McCain.

By all appearances, Governor Palin is a true conservative. She is pro-life. She is pro-Second Amendment. Alaska is one of only two states (Vermont is the other) that recognize the right of their citizens to carry handguns without a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit. She was rightly critical of the invasion of Iraq, once calling it a "war for oil." Speaking of oil, she believes we should drill for oil in Alaska and throughout the U.S., and is critical of the federal government for allowing America to become dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs. She even heaped praises upon the Republican that Republicans love to hate: Ron Paul. Beyond that, Lynette Clark, the chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party (the party under which yours truly is on the Presidential ballot this year) reports that Sarah Palin was a member of the party back in the early 90s. This is very encouraging in that the AIP is a patriotic, states' rights party that holds strong sentiments opposing the New World Order propensities of the two major parties. In essence, Sarah Palin is everything that John McCain isn't. Which leads to the question that was asked long ago by the Hebrew prophet: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

When the no-compromise constitutionalist, Ron Paul, was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he would consider being John McCain's running mate, he said no. His reason for that was that should McCain do something fundamentally counter to his constitutional convictions--such as bombing Iran without a Declaration of War (or other possible unconstitutional actions that Paul knows McCain is predisposed to)--he would have to resign. Knowing this, he (Paul) could not in good conscience accept a McCain invitation to join his ticket (not that McCain would ever ask him to be his running mate; Ron was not even invited to participate in the Republican convention, for Pete's sake).

Herein lies the problem for Sarah Palin. How can a principled conservative support the policies and actions of an unprincipled globalist such as John McCain? As Vice President, Palin will be required to promote and defend McCain's big-government, liberal, and globalist plans. For example, what will she do when John McCain proposes amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which he is certain to do? What will she do when McCain proposes to close gun shows, or at least the private sale of firearms at gun shows? What will she do when he proposes to increase federal spending for abortion providers (which he has done numerous times as senator)? What will she do when he promotes federal spending for embryonic stem cell research? What will she do when John McCain proliferates Bush's police state machinations by expanding the Patriot Act and similar legislation? What will Palin do when McCain decides to nuke Iran (and who knows what else), not only without a Declaration of War by Congress, but also without provocation or justification? What will she do as John McCain expands the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico? What will she do as McCain opens the door of the NAFTA superhighway and the North American Union? What will she do as John McCain allows the United Nations to dictate and manipulate America's foreign policy? Again, can two walk together except they be agreed?

Let's face it: John McCain is using Sarah Palin as inducement to trick conservatives into accepting his liberal, big-government, globalist candidacy. And, sadly, it is working.

As I have said before, today's national Christian leaders are among the most gullible people on the planet. They are so desperate to be invited to sit at the king's table that they will compromise practically any principle. But accepting John McCain was a not only a bitter pill, it was a BIG pill, one they could not get down without a major dose of syrup. And that is exactly what Governor Palin brings to the table: sweet syrup to help conservatives swallow John McCain.

Unfortunately, the things that make Palin so attractive (her conservative principles) are the things that she will be forced to surrender in order to be John McCain's running mate. The best thing that can happen to Sarah Palin is for John McCain to lose the November election. This would allow her to go into the 2012 elections as perhaps the Republican Presidential frontrunner. If McCain wins in November, and Palin is forced to serve at the pleasure of this globalist insider for four years, she will be forever ruined as a genuine constitutional conservative. Remember, "No man can serve two masters." One cannot be faithful to the Constitution and a constitutional apostate such as John McCain at the same time. That is an absolute impossibility.

What our conservative friends need to wake up to is the depth of duplicity and wickedness that permeates Washington politics (in both major parties) today. There is nothing that these globalist insiders at the Council on Foreign Relations (of which John McCain is a longtime member) will not do to fulfill their power-mad plans. There is nothing too evil, too sinister, or too iniquitous, including using, abusing, chewing up and then spitting out good people such as Sarah Palin. Even more unfortunate and sad is the fact that the James Dobsons of this world are too blind to see it.

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

Hooray For Jerry Corsi

Hooray For Jerry Corsi 
by Chuck Baldwin 
August 19, 2008 






Dr. Jerome Corsi is probably the most controversial man in America these days. His blockbuster new book, The Obama Nation, is currently the New York Times Number One Bestseller, and media talking heads are having a hissy fit. They are incensed that there is someone of Corsi's intelligence and credentials who is willing to tell the truth about the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

You see, the national media have elevated Obama to a position beyond sainthood: they view him as the fourth member of the Godhead. He can do no wrong. He is America's--no, check that, he is the world's--savior. How dare Dr. Corsi spoil the sacrosanct candidacy--and the media's universal anointing--of Obama?

The fact is, however, Jerry Corsi is a rare breed these days: he is an honest and objective journalist whose commitment to truth outweighs his desire for popularity. I will go even further: Jerry Corsi is what the rest of the national media should be, but aren't.

Benjamin Franklin and the other Founding Fathers believed that the First Amendment protection of the freedom of the press was necessary, because they assumed the press would serve as an independent, unbiased, and truthful check and balance to the propensities of government toward subterfuge and duplicity. And for many years, this goal was more or less fulfilled. No more.

For the most part, the national media today are nothing more than lap dogs for both major parties, but especially for the Democratic Party. We have not seen a sincere effort by the major media to circumvent the machinations of the party in power (Democrat or Republican) since the days of the Watergate investigations. The major media--especially the television media--have accommodated and even facilitated George W. Bush's corruption as much as they did Bill Clinton's--maybe more. With few exceptions, they have become nothing more than pathetic panderers of power.

Therefore, when a fellow journalist--especially one with the credentials of Jerry Corsi--writes a thoroughly researched and well-documented exposé of one of the media's darlings, packs of attack dogs descend with bloodlust. In fact, Dr. Corsi has received more intensive scrutiny from the national media in one week than Barack Obama has received since he became a candidate for President.

I say, Hooray for Jerry Corsi. And, yes, I very much appreciate the fact that he endorsed my candidacy for President by saying in his book, "I intend to vote in 2008 for Chuck Baldwin." However, readers should know that I admired Jerry Corsi and his brilliant investigative reports long before I became a candidate for President with the Constitution Party and long before he wrote his latest masterpiece. Dr. Corsi also made it clear that his book The Obama Nation was in no way intended "to be an argument for Chuck Baldwin [his quote]."

For balance, every person in America should read Dr. Corsi's book The Late Great USA. This book just might be the most important book written in this young twenty-first century. Jerry's exposure of President George W. Bush's (and his fellow travelers at the Council on Foreign Relations) globalist schemes in The Late Great USA is beyond masterful: it is a blueprint for America's survival as a free and independent republic. Therefore, no one can honestly claim that Corsi's exposé on Obama is somehow politically biased, because he has exposed the shenanigans of both Republicans and Democrats.

I just wish that Jerry had time to write an exposé on John McCain, because no one else among America's national journalists has the intention (much less the integrity) of doing it, and McCain is certainly equally deserving.

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

My Heroes Of History

My Heroes Of History
by Chuck Baldwin
August 12, 2008


I am often asked about the people in history that I revere or otherwise hold in high esteem. Today's column is an attempt to answer that question. Bear in mind, this list is by no means complete. I know I am omitting several people that should truly be included. However, time and space limitations require me to condense my list. So, here goes.

I'll begin with Old Testament history. David, Nehemiah, and Elijah are my heroes here. Despite his one moral lapse, David's heart and character are unsurpassed. Along with Abraham and Moses, David is one of the three greatest men of the Old Testament. And he is my personal favorite.

Nehemiah is the personification of leadership. The Book of Nehemiah is the quintessential textbook on leadership. Nothing written since equals it. Elijah is the personification of courage. He faced down 850 false prophets. His like was not seen until the arrival of John the Baptist.

A lesser-known Old Testament man by the name of Jehonadab is probably the greatest father in the Bible. His children and grandchildren, for many generations, remained loyal to his instruction. His familial example has never been equaled.

In the New Testament, my heroes are Peter, John, and Paul. Paul was probably the greatest intellectual of his day. He did more to bring Christianity to the world than any other single individual. Only King David had a heart equal to John's, and only Elijah had the spirit and courage to match Peter's.

The Reformers hold a dear place in my heart: John Wycliffe and John Hus come to mind. Add, of course, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Knox. Of these, I think Zwingli is my favorite. And while my attention is on European history, I confess to a strong sense of appreciation for the great Scottish freedom fighter, William Wallace.

I also confess to a strong penchant for American heroes. In this respect, I regard all of America's Founding Fathers as heroes of the highest order. My favorite in this group might be Patrick Henry, but George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, John Adams, Sam Adams, and James Madison must also be included. Daniel Webster also makes my list.

I must also include great colonial preachers such as John Leland, John Witherspoon, and Jonathan Edwards in my list of heroes. And the nineteenth-century Baptist pastor in London, England, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, is no doubt my all-time favorite preacher. I have tried to read everything he ever wrote.

Among nineteenth-century figures, none stand out more to me than Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson. For that matter, practically all of the generals from the Old Confederacy were probably the greatest assembly of military leaders to ever live. Their combined character on and off the battlefield is the stuff of legend. It will never be matched.

My favorite Presidents would include George Washington, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Washington is far and away the greatest President America has ever had. I like Jackson's rugged individualism and the way he stood up to the bankers of his day.

James Garfield grabs my respect, as he is the only minister to win the White House. In fact, he is quoted as saying, "I resign the highest office in the land to become President of the United States." He was assassinated less than four months after assuming office. I believe he would have been a great President had he lived.

How can anyone not like Teddy Roosevelt? He is an American legend, the hero of San Juan Hill, and an American icon.

I believe Teddy Roosevelt had a noble reason for his conservation policies, and in some ways, those policies were worthwhile. Obviously, however, those very same policies have evolved into little more than additional tools for Big Government in modern America.

For the record, I score Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson as being America's worst Presidents. On one hand, I credit Lincoln with breaking up the two-party monopoly prevalent in his day. We have not seen a Whig in a while. In this respect, I wish someone today could be another Lincoln and somehow break up the current two-party monopoly that plagues our country, because the party that replaced the Whigs (the Republican Party) is worse than the Whigs ever were. As President, however, Lincoln was a disaster. I encourage anyone wanting an honest, objective analysis of Lincoln's Presidency to read Thomas DiLorenzo's two masterpieces, "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked."

Woodrow Wilson continued the collectivist, Big-Government policies of Lincoln and helped usher in the Sixteenth Amendment, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and many other monstrosities. He also paved the way for the United Nations and other entities designed to steal America's liberty and independence.

I realize that Ronald Reagan's second term in office was riddled with inconsistencies and compromises. This was largely due to his foolish decision to surround himself with the George Bush Neocons that have dominated Washington, D.C., ever since. That said, however, Ronald Reagan's infectious patriotism, along with his willingness to face down the Soviet Union, carved out a great deal of respect for him in my heart.

Other people of note who I regard as heroes are people such as George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, General Douglas MacArthur, General Daniel "Chappie" James Jr., and, yes, even John Wayne. And I must also include Will Travis, David Crockett, and all those boys at the Alamo in my list of heroes.

Again, I realize that I have left off many names that--if space had permitted--I would have included. But there is my short list of history's heroes. How does it stack up to yours?

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

  

The Religious Right Is AWOL From The Real War

The Religious Right Is AWOL From The Real War

By Chuck Baldwin

July 23, 2008

I want to begin this column with one of my all-time favorite quotes. It comes from the great German reformer Martin Luther. He said, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of

God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Luther's trenchant statement reminds us that today's Christians, especially our Christian leaders, are conspicuously absent from the field of battle. Oh, they may host large crowds in their gatherings; they may deposit multiplied millions of dollars in their financial accounts; they may receive thunderous applause from politicians, but they have fled the battlefield at the point of attack.

For the record, the real battlefield today is not abortion. It is not homosexual marriage. It is not Social Security. It is not al Qaeda. It is not taxes. It is not inflation. It is not electing conservatives. It is not posting the Ten Commandments. It is not even the high cost of gasoline. That is not to say that those issues are not important and not deserving of our best efforts and attention, because they are. But those issues do not represent the major battlefield today.

The battlefield where the devil has amassed his greatest forces and is thrusting his deadliest armies is the surrender of our national sovereignty and independence, and the creation of global government. And it is our own

political and corporate leaders that are facilitating this chicanery. Furthermore, by refusing to oppose this surrender, our Christian leaders are complicit as well.

Obviously, the surrender of our independence has been ongoing for some time. However, under Bill Clinton and especially under G.W. Bush, the pace has quickened exponentially.

Doubtless, the biggest reason President Bush has more aggressively hastened the pace of America's merger into supranational government is because he enjoys widespread support among evangelical Christians. Absent opposition from Christian leaders, G.W. Bush has virtually had a free hand. And please know this: before Bush was a Republican, before he was a "conservative," before he was a Christian, he was and is a globalist, as was his father and grandfather before him.

Because our national Christian leaders are content to revel in the lap of political cronyism with President Bush (and the Republican Party), they have abandoned their positions as watchmen on the wall. Instead of being watchmen and heralds of truth, they have become political lackeys and toadies for the GOP.

Now, just yesterday, James Dobson declares that he "might" support John McCain. This in spite of the fact that only a few months ago Mr. Dobson promised, "I cannot and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain as a matter of

conscience."

Ah, but that is just the problem: when it comes to groveling before the GOP, our Christian leaders have no conscience. Hence, James Dobson is now publicly saying he "might" support McCain.

The ones who are doing the yeoman's work in trying to warn the American people to what is happening in regard to the surrender of our country's liberties and independence are people such as Congressman Ron Paul and Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Many of you know Corsi as the man who co-authored the Number 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."

Jerome Corsi holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science. He is not some fringe-radical (not that Harvard hasn't produced its own radicals). Religiously, my understanding is that Corsi is either a Roman Catholic or Episcopalian. However, Corsi is doing what James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al. should be doing, but aren't: he is sounding the trumpet of truth for the real battlefield.

In a nutshell, Corsi warns us that G.W. Bush is secretly working to merge the United States into a trilateral government with Canada and Mexico. Corsi maintains that back in March of 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin entered into an agreement that binds the three countries into a regional or hemispheric government.

Corsi insists that this is one of the central reasons why Bush is so adamant about granting amnesty to Mexico's illegal aliens. Bush is simply following through with his commitment to Fox and Martin.

Corsi also notes that this new hemispheric entity already has a name. It is called the North American Union (NAU), and it is being created without any input (or even knowledge) from our legislative or judicial branches of

government. The official name of the agreement made between the three leaders is the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). Obviously, the new NAU is modeled after the already established European Union (EU).

Folks, please be aware that President Bush has already committed the United States to a regional or hemispheric government. When completed, this regional government will control everything relative to the "security" and

"prosperity" of this new North American Union. That includes everything relating to travel, law enforcement, trade, education, military matters, etc. So, what is left out? Nothing.

Please remember, too, that all of this is being done without any input from the American people or their elected representatives at the state or federal level. I would even dare say that the vast majority of congressmen and

senators are completely oblivious to the fact that this is even happening. With the attention of the American people (and Congress) focused on the Middle East, Bush and his cabal of elitists are moving forward with plans to surrender our national independence and merge our country into a regional government. Friends, this is the real war; this is the real battlefield.

When America loses its sovereignty and independence, we will lose all of our fundamental liberties. The Constitution will be meaningless and irrelevant. The Bill of Rights will be moot. The principles of religious liberty, the right to life, and the Christian foundation of our country will be passй. And, as I said at the outset of this column, our national leaders, especially our Christian leaders, are totally absent from this battlefield.

The surrender of our national sovereignty and independence is where the battle currently rages; it is where the devil is at this moment attacking (to quote Luther). But where is the Religious Right? They have flinched and

fled in the face of battle. They would rather hold onto their precious perks of power within the ivory towers of partisan politics. Luther is right: their actions are disgraceful.

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin
****************

Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World

The Secret Nazis

The EU is a German Ruse

I Am An American!

I Am An American!

By Chuck Baldwin

July 18, 2008

This column is archived at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080718.html

Free republics are not known to have long life expectancies. At the ripe old age of two hundred and thirty-two, America is definitely showing her age. She is long past her prime, and some are predicting her demise. No, some are PLANNING her demise.

Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of this once-great country believed there was a controlling cabal that was crafting America's servitude. With the assistance of Heaven, they decided to fight those forces. Pastors fought with fiery sermons from the pulpit; newsmen fought with the power of the pen; statesmen fought in the halls of Congress; and merchants fought with the sacrifice of their material gain. Together, they lifted Lady Liberty to

her feet and defeated the powers of darkness.

It took the global elite a long time to recover, but they have reemerged with a vengeance. They are now on the precipice of accomplishing what their great granddaddies failed to do: bring the "Liberty or Death" colonists

under their power and control.

Sadly, we no longer have the will to resist servitude. Our pulpits are too busy preaching a prosperity gospel; newsmen are in bed with the forces they once disdained; statesmen have been replaced with opportunistic,

self-serving politicians; and merchants know no god but money. Hence, it is left to a small--and I mean very small--remnant to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence. Unfortunately, few seem to be listening to

their cries.

2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will commercially unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor setback when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that John McCain is going to let that bill lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. Should McCain become President, He will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law. Barack Obama will do the same. The reason? It is essential to the designers of despotism that our borders be eliminated.

Yes, I am saying it: George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama are part of the global elite that seeks America's entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, neither Presidential candidate from the two major parties will offer any resistance to this obstinate and oppressive oligarchy.

Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that they are being led as sheep to the slaughter. I'm just not sure that it will be soon enough, however. 2010 is just around the corner.

There seems to be only one obstacle standing in the way of the globalists: America's citizens are the most heavily armed people in the world. That fact must surely stick in the throats of the globalists like a chicken bone.

Thank God that America's founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Without America's deep-rooted commitment to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have been sold into slavery decades ago.

Without the intellectual understanding of the principles of freedom and the moral resolve to maintain those principles, however, guns, by themselves, will only protect us for so long. In the end, our strength and protection

come from God, and not too many people these days seem to be interested in His opinion.

Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their handpicked puppets positioned to take up where The Three Amigos (George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II) have left off. The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.

For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or

Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

A Perfect Gift For Independence Day

A Perfect Gift For Independence Day
by Chuck Baldwin
June 17, 2008

A few years ago, I sadly discovered that it was next to impossible to find our nation's great historic documents together in one volume, so we decided to fix that problem. It took us a full year to research and compile over 50 of our country's greatest historical documents, but we did it!

Now, just in time for Independence Day, you can have these great documents at your fingertips in one beautifully bound, easy to read format. These are the documents that gave birth to the greatest free nation on earth. Nowhere else that we know of can you find these documents, complete in one volume, under one title. We call this magnificent collection THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS.

Former Congressman and MSNBC Talk Show Host Joe Scarborough has obtained a copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, as has former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Even the State Supreme Court in Tennessee ordered several copies. Pastors, teachers, high school and college students, law and history students, and homeschoolers have found THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS immensely valuable to the study of American history and civics.

Included in this remarkable volume are documents such as The Mayflower Compact, The First Thanksgiving Proclamation, the complete text of Patrick Henry's immortal "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech, The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, George Washington's Farewell Address, Ronald Reagan's First and Second Inaugural Addresses, and so on.

We have also included several letters written between John and Abigail Adams as well as letters written from Robert E. Lee. Do you remember the poem about Paul Revere's ride? Well, it too is included in this compilation. Also included is the letter written from within the Alamo by William Barret Travis to the people of Texas. Of course, the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are also there.

This giant compilation includes more than 50 documents, over 170 full-sized pages complete with a spiral ring binding for easy copying, and a professionally designed color cover. This volume is must-reading for every American patriot! For the price of a couple of pizzas, you can have the great documents of American history delivered to your door.

The price is $35 for a single copy, or $25 each if you purchase two or more, plus $5 each for shipping. Simply mail your check or Money Order to:

Chuck Baldwin Live
P.O. Box 37070
Pensacola, FL 32526

And there is more: we can now take credit cards. Obviously, this is the fastest way to obtain your copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. To order by credit card online, or to learn more about THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Order now before our supply runs out!

Former Constitution Party Presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, said, "THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS is must-reading for every American. It is essential that this volume be placed in every home in the country. I read my copy daily. We require our home-schooled children to study THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS."

Do not look for this volume in stores; it can only be purchased here. A retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel thought he could find these documents by simply going to the Internet. After searching several days without success, he ordered two copies of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. He told my secretary, "Tell Chuck he's right. You can't find these anywhere else in one volume. I tried."

Here are some other personal testimonials of people who have purchased THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS:

"I have begun reading through my copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. I must admit, I was somewhat skeptical of the price before purchase, but now that I am reading it, I understand what a bargain it is! Priceless!"

-KT, Massachusetts

"THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS could save our country, if we can get enough people to order it."

-WS, Mansfield, Texas

"I just wanted to say that I received my order and they are great! This is by far the best collection I have seen. I am a disabled Vet and would like to order 5 more to send to my children."

-GB, Oakhurst, Oklahoma

I believe you will be just as pleased to receive your copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS as were these folks. Plus, considering the direction our country is taking, how long will it be before these great documents are considered taboo? We might need to get them while we still can!

Our supply will last only a couple of weeks, so order quickly--and thanks for reading my commentaries.

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

Freedom Fighters

Freedom Fighters

Ron Paul has announced the conclusion of his Fantastic run for the President of the USA.

Chuck Baldwin stumped for Ron Paul and holds the exact same positions and views, The GOP wouldn't have any part of a Constitutional, Conservative, who would seek to lower federal spending and cut unnecessary programs. Well, Now you should have NO part of the GOP.

We ask that you help restore the Constitution and your Individual Liberties. Please help us change the way Washington does business. We understand that everyone gave until it hurt, when it came to Ron Paul. So did we but we know that the Revolution must continue. We need your help to put a Constitutionalist in office. Can you help us put Chuck Balwin on the ballot in all 50 states? If 4,000 people give just $25 dollars we can achieve our goal. This is your country. Take it back! Help us to do just that.

Sincerely,

Chuck Baldwin Fundraising Committee

http://baldwin2008.com/

Remembering D-Day

Remembering D-Day
by Chuck Baldwin
June 6, 2008

Back on June 6, 1994, I was privileged to be invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of D-Day celebration at the National Cemetery, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Today's column is an edited copy of that address.

If December 7, 1941, was the day that would live in infamy then June 6, 1944, was the day that would live in infinity. On this date fifty years ago the invasion of France by Allied Forces began under the code name, "Operation Overlord." A phalanx of ships totaling more than 5,000--of more than 100 different varieties--and 2,300 transport planes carried more than 300,000 men into the greatest military invasion in the history of the world. By July 4, nearly one million soldiers had landed. They were met by 30 infantry divisions and 10 tank divisions of Hitler's best. At stake was the fate of the war in Europe and the fate of freedom for the world. It was the German Field Marshal, Erwin Rommel, who predicted that, "For the Allies, as well as Germany, it will be the longest day." How right he was. By the end of those twenty-four hours over 2,500 allied soldiers and sailors had slipped into eternity. No one knows exactly how many Germans did the same. But the end of that day also brought a great victory for the Allied forces and the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.

The Pathfinders and Paratroopers arrived first. It was Brigadier General James "Jumpin' Jim" Gavin who warned his troops, "When you land in Normandy, you will have only one friend: God." So, in the pre-dawn darkness of June 6, 20,000 Paratroopers descended into occupied France. Eisenhower was more worried about the airborne operation than any other part of the invasion. His fears were warranted. Of the 120 Pathfinders only 38 landed on their targets. It is believed that Private Leonard Devorchak was the first American killed on D-Day. Some of the Paratroopers fell into swollen swamps, others into the channel itself, and with heavily weighted equipment on their backs, drowned--some in less than two feet of water. Some were carried by brisk winds into the occupied town of Sainte-Mere-Eglise.

As fate would have it, a villa had caught fire in the town square and about 100 inhabitants were busy passing buckets trying to put out the fire. Some of our brave Paratroopers screamed as they landed in the middle of that blazing inferno. Others were machine-gunned to death as they descended into the heavily armed village. Our men were strewn and scattered over miles of enemy territory, enlisted men without officers and officers with no men to lead. Numbered in the latter group was Major General Maxwell Taylor. He found himself with a plethora of officers, but only three enlisted men. He told them, "Never have so few been commanded by so many." But if confusion and disarray prevailed among our Paratroopers, it was even more in evidence among the German defenders. They still had no idea that the invasion had begun.

As dawn broke, the Allied armada descended upon the beaches of Normandy. The names of those beaches have been immortalized in our minds: Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha and Utah. Under the command of General Montgomery, the British 2nd Army attacked Sword, Juno and Gold, while the U.S. First Army stormed Utah and Omaha. The resolve of the infantry soldiers was unmistakable. On the H.M.S. Empire Anvil, Corporal Michael Kurtz said to his squad, "As soon as we're spotted we'll catch enemy fire. If you make it, okay. If you don't, it's a good place to die. Now let's go."

One free Frenchman numbered among that gallant group said, "We shall die on the sands of our dear France, but we will not turn back." Such was the commitment and dedication of those brave men.

So, with heavy artillery from innumerable Naval guns and the strafing by formation after formation of Air Force and Navy planes, some 12,000 sorties in all, the invasion began. Perhaps it was the worst at Omaha Beach. "Bloody Omaha," they called it. And indeed it was. General Omar Bradley was concerned about Omaha Beach. He knew his First Infantry Division was attacking some of the most battle-proven of all of Germany's divisions, the tough 352nd. And, like Eisenhower's concern for the paratroopers, Bradley's fears for his beloved First Infantry were also justified. Landing craft were blown apart as they came in. German mortar and machine gun fire were omnipresent. Misfortune piled upon misfortune for those on Omaha. Many soldiers landed in the wrong sectors. Demolition engineers, who were supposed to blow paths through the beach obstacles, were egregiously behind schedule. As a result, demolition teams were running into invading infantrymen. Many assault troops were taking shelter behind the very obstacles the engineers were trying to blow up.

During those initial moments, it was as if time stood still and Armageddon had begun. Bodies and parts of bodies were floating on the water, and, yes, flying through the air. Every wave of the sea regurgitated more bodies, more blood, more ruined equipment. The young medics' accounts of this awesome spectacle are incredible. Sergeant Alfred Eigenberg told of seeing a soldier whose leg was "laid open from the knee to the pelvis as neatly as though a surgeon had done it with a scalpel." The wound was so deep that Eigenberg could see the femoral artery pulsing. The young medic did the only thing he knew to do. He folded the nearly sliced halves of the man's leg together and carefully closed the wound with safety pins.

Over at Utah Beach it was a different story. Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., the 57 year old son of the former President, and the only general to land with first-wave troops, studied to determine why his forces had met with so little resistance. He quickly figured it out. They had landed in the wrong place. 30,000 troops and 3,500 vehicles were right behind him. If a decision was not made immediately, a major defeat was imminent. Roosevelt turned to his battalion commanders and said, "We will start the war from right here." He subsequently took his Fourth Infantry Division and drove inland taking out German positions wherever they found them.

Now, on the beaches of Sword, Juno, and Gold, the British and Canadians were landing. By and large, these troops encountered less resistance than did the Americans on Omaha. They would make D-Day's greatest advances, but they failed to capture their principal objective: the city of Caen. There they encountered the plucky 21st Panzer Division who held on to the town for the next five weeks.

By mid-morning, it was obvious that the Allies would succeed. By nightfall, there were 150,000 allied troops ashore and thousands more on their way. The Nazis were doomed to defeat. Germany surrendered less than a year later.

In all historical incidents, especially those of major significance, there are stories behind the stories. Perhaps nowhere is this more in evidence than in the stories of great battles.

In that dastardly winter of 1775, when General George Washington's troops were starving and freezing, it looked as if our valiant struggle for independence was about to crumble. Washington's response was to cross the Delaware River and attack a far superior, fresher, better equipped, better fed, better conditioned enemy. But, we know the rest of the story, don't we?

What you may not recall was when Washington's troops began crossing the Delaware, the adversarial guards sent a word of warning to the Hessian general that an attack had begun. Had the commander responded to that message, Washington would certainly have been defeated. But the general was in the middle of a huge victory party. So, after being handed the warning, he simply wadded it up and put the message in his pocket without even reading it.

It is very interesting that June 6 is not only the date of D-Day; it is also the birthday of Mrs. Erwin Rommel. As such, the great commander had left Normandy to return to Germany to be with his wife. He was sure the weather was too inclement for an attack. Rommel left Normandy on June 4. On June 5, Allied Chief Meteorologist, Captain J.M. Stagg, of the Royal Air Force, told General Eisenhower that there would be twenty-four hours of relief in the weather. Just twenty-four hours. Eisenhower deliberated his decision for about five minutes. Slowly he said, "I am quite positive we must give the order. I don't like it, but there it is. I don't see how we can do anything else."

What did Washington and Eisenhower have in common? Did Washington know that the enemy commander would discard the warning of his attack? Did Eisenhower know Rommel would be gone from the battlefront? What caused that twenty-four hour clearing in the weather the same day Rommel was home for his wife's birthday? What is the thread that binds so much of our country's history together?

When our troops crossed the Delaware River, we were fighting for liberty. And when our forces landed on the Normandy coast, we were fighting for freedom: freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom to elect our representatives, and freedom to protect and provide for our families.

America was birthed and sustained under the banner of freedom. Accordingly, this nation has enjoyed the peculiar protection and blessing of Almighty God. The Scripture puts it this way, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Turn it around and it says, "Where liberty is, there is the Spirit of the Lord."

In our National Anthem, the inspired pen of Francis Scott Key asks the question, "Oh say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" Thanks to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen of D-Day, yes, Old Glory still waves.

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080606.html