Find out the latest right now at WND.com.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Riot police shield Obama from tea-party grandmas
When hundreds of tea-party protesters – including many elderly women – gathered outside a civic center where President Obama was giving a public speech Wednesday, they were surprised to be greeted by police dispatched in full riot gear. Snipers carefully scrutinized grandmothers singing "God Bless America."
Find out the latest right now at WND.com.
Find out the latest right now at WND.com.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
What’s More Important: Liberty Or The Entity That Protects It?
By Chuck Baldwin
April 27, 2010
This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1293
Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.
Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)
Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.
Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:
“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)
Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.
To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!
Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!
When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.
Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?
Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!
Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.
Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”
The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)
Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)
Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.
As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”
Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.
Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.
As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.
On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.
As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
April 27, 2010
This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1293
Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.
Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)
Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.
Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:
“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)
Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.
To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!
Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!
When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.
Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?
Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!
Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.
Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”
The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)
Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)
Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.
As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”
Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.
Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.
As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.
On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.
As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
When will whites look after OUR interests?
APRIL 27, 2010
PRUDEN: It's time to play the race card
Race-baiting never goes out of style. Only the races and the baiters change.
************
The Kenyan, the president usurper, the fraud and foreigner Obama/Soetoro/Obama, was elected (other than by ACORN swindling) by pimping his half-breed race, which was popular among non-whites and whites suffering from the politically correct imposed "white guilt." It's past time people of white color look after OUR interests, without apology, and put the unclean kind of Hussein Obama back in their place.
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
PRUDEN: It's time to play the race card
Race-baiting never goes out of style. Only the races and the baiters change.
************
The Kenyan, the president usurper, the fraud and foreigner Obama/Soetoro/Obama, was elected (other than by ACORN swindling) by pimping his half-breed race, which was popular among non-whites and whites suffering from the politically correct imposed "white guilt." It's past time people of white color look after OUR interests, without apology, and put the unclean kind of Hussein Obama back in their place.
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A Concurring (Biblical) Opinion For Secession
This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1267
My son, Tim Baldwin, who is a constitutional attorney, recently engaged my friend, attorney Ed Vieira, Jr., in a spirited and intellectual written debate on the rightness or wrongness of State secession. Vieira took the
unionist position that states do not have the constitutional right to secede. Tim took the freedomist position that states have both a constitutional and Natural Law right to secede (a position with which I firmly agree, as most readers know).
Here is the link to Tim's columns:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=5
And here is the link to Vieira's columns:
http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm
One element that neither writer covered (understandably so, given the legal nature of the debate) was the BIBLICAL right of secession. Christians rightly square everything with the principles and precepts of the Holy Scriptures. So, is there Biblical approbation and authority for State secession?
Before answering the Biblical question, let me briefly touch upon the Christian reaction to State secession both here in America and overseas.
First, overseas. I doubt that there are many Christian pastors and churchmen who would be willing to denounce, denigrate, or declare as illegitimate the nation-state of Norway today. What Christian would advocate cutting off trade or diplomatic relations with Norway? Where is the Christian denomination or Church that would not recognize the right of Norway to peacefully exist?
Of course, Norway's parliament dissolved the union between Sweden and Norway on June 7, 1905. While an attempted dissolution that had taken place in 1814 was squashed by a Swedish military victory, the separation of 1905 was done peacefully and without bloodshed (although Norway was willing to shed
blood, had it been required). Since Norway's secession in 1905, the two neighboring countries have enjoyed extremely close--even brotherly--relations.
So, where is the spiritual condemnation for Norway? Who among us would quote Romans 13, et al., in an attempt to demonize the brave, independent spirit of the Norwegians?
By the same token, where is the spiritual outrage over the dissolution of Czechoslovakia? On January 1, 1993, the federal State of Czechoslovakia separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This has been called the "Velvet Divorce" in political parlance, due to the amicable and peaceful nature of the separation. (Of course, Czechoslovakia itself had come into existence by the breakup of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I.)
We could go on an on with historical examples of how nation-states separated--by either violent or non-violent means. So, why is it that Christians, pastors, and churchmen will not so much as bat an eye at the
numerous State separations that have taken place over the centuries, but suddenly become righteously indignant when discussing the American South's attempted separation from the Union in 1861--or even of the 13 Colonies' separation from Great Britain in 1776?
And while we are on the subject of hypocrisy, how dare any Church or pastor denounce State secession or separation on one hand and then turn around and celebrate Independence Day on July 4? How dare they host "patriotic" services and invite special patriotic speakers and singers to come into their churches? How dare they encourage civic involvement and responsibility (such as voting)? How dare they promote participation in the US military, if they believe that there was no legitimacy to America's separation from
Great Britain? Plus, how dare today's preachers and Bible teachers condemn what George Washington and the boys did in the American Revolution, and then turn around and celebrate the freedom and independence that was produced and preserved by that same Revolution?
Now, let's look at the Biblical record.
The right of State secession is rooted and grounded in the Word of God. Did the Holy Spirit not inspire the New Testament writer to say, "Now all these things [Old Testament history] happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come"?
(I Corinthians 10:11 KJV)
The last time I checked, the Holy Bible contained 66 Books, not 27; and Jehovah's introduction of civil government in the Old Testament is replete with examples of State secession.
Did God not separate the nations at the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter 11? He certainly did. In fact, the goal of global union was first attempted at Babel. At this point, it was God, Himself, Who was the sponsor of
"State separation."
Also, did God not "separate" Israel from Egypt by a mighty and miraculous deliverance? Even the theocracy of Israel under Moses served as a presage for future State autonomy. God divided the nation of Israel into 12 independent tribes. Each tribe had its own individuality, leaders (under Moses, of course), territory, etc. Remember, too, when Israel crossed the Jordan River and entered the Promised Land that 2 1/2 tribes (Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh) chose to stay on the east side of Jordan. This was happily allowed by Joshua and the other 9 1/2 tribes.
In fact, the Book of Judges is simply a redundant account of tyrannical powers enslaving God's people and the subsequent rise of deliverers (directed and empowered by God) to separate the nation, thus providing
His people with freedom and independence.
Furthermore, the divided kingdom of Israel provides a classic Biblical example of the right of State secession. As a result of Solomon's sin (I Kings 11:11-13), God allowed the nation to be divided. "Israel" was the
name of the Northern Kingdom, comprising 10 tribes. Its first king was Jeroboam, and the capital was Samaria. "Judah" was the name of the Southern Kingdom, comprising 2 tribes, Judah and Benjamin. Rehoboam was Judah's first king, and the capital was Jerusalem.
These two nations--which shared the same history, heritage, ancestry, language, etc.--engaged in friendly (and sometimes not-so-friendly) commerce and trade, participated in mutually beneficial dialogue and diplomacy, and even sometimes allied themselves in times of war. And, yes, they also occasionally became mortal enemies against each other. Between the two, the Southern Kingdom enjoyed far and away more of the favor of Heaven. It had (for the most part) better leaders, had a more vibrant spiritual life, and was afforded more peace. In fact, Jehovah, through His prophets, often warned Judah against the propensity to become entangled with the idolatrous affairs of the Northern State. In general, the more Judah remained
separate from Israel, the more successful it was. Conversely, the more entangled Judah became with Israel, the more dreadful the consequences became.
Judah's secession from Israel not only gave it a more peaceful and productive existence, it extended its liberty by over 100 years. Israel went into Assyrian captivity in 721 B.C., while Judah went into Babylonian
captivity in 586 B.C.
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that would preclude states from seceding, separating, or declaring independence from one another. In fact, just the opposite is true. The examples from the Bible should be plentiful enough for any rational person to understand that the God of Heaven has given mankind the individual and collective volition to choose (or reject) our leaders, government, etc. (I have already dealt with Romans 13, et al., so I will not belabor that issue again at this juncture.)
To read my columns on Romans 13, go here:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=218
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070810.html
I also recommend that one reads Dr. Greg Dixon's treatise on Romans 13
at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/favearchive20090210.html
Given the socio-political climate in America these days, the subject of State separation and independence needs to again be discussed; for should the central government in Washington, D.C., continue its propensity to violate its contract with the states (the US Constitution) and persist in its current nefariousness--to abridge liberty and State sovereignty--it could one day become necessary for states to reconsider separating from
the Union. And should that day come, Christians need to have a clear conscience in knowing that such an act would (if lawfully done) be in perfect harmony with not only the US Constitution and Natural Law, but also Scriptural principle.
P.S. And now that the reader understands the Scriptural correctness of State separation, it is incumbent that he or she reads Tim's recent column entitled "Plan For Freedom." See it at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1244
P.P.S. After enduring a serious hack job against our web site, I am happy to report that we are now fully functional again. I apologize for the several days of interruption that this sabotage caused. Please feel free to
visit and interact with my web site once more. My site is located at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3 children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1267
My son, Tim Baldwin, who is a constitutional attorney, recently engaged my friend, attorney Ed Vieira, Jr., in a spirited and intellectual written debate on the rightness or wrongness of State secession. Vieira took the
unionist position that states do not have the constitutional right to secede. Tim took the freedomist position that states have both a constitutional and Natural Law right to secede (a position with which I firmly agree, as most readers know).
Here is the link to Tim's columns:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=5
And here is the link to Vieira's columns:
http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm
One element that neither writer covered (understandably so, given the legal nature of the debate) was the BIBLICAL right of secession. Christians rightly square everything with the principles and precepts of the Holy Scriptures. So, is there Biblical approbation and authority for State secession?
Before answering the Biblical question, let me briefly touch upon the Christian reaction to State secession both here in America and overseas.
First, overseas. I doubt that there are many Christian pastors and churchmen who would be willing to denounce, denigrate, or declare as illegitimate the nation-state of Norway today. What Christian would advocate cutting off trade or diplomatic relations with Norway? Where is the Christian denomination or Church that would not recognize the right of Norway to peacefully exist?
Of course, Norway's parliament dissolved the union between Sweden and Norway on June 7, 1905. While an attempted dissolution that had taken place in 1814 was squashed by a Swedish military victory, the separation of 1905 was done peacefully and without bloodshed (although Norway was willing to shed
blood, had it been required). Since Norway's secession in 1905, the two neighboring countries have enjoyed extremely close--even brotherly--relations.
So, where is the spiritual condemnation for Norway? Who among us would quote Romans 13, et al., in an attempt to demonize the brave, independent spirit of the Norwegians?
By the same token, where is the spiritual outrage over the dissolution of Czechoslovakia? On January 1, 1993, the federal State of Czechoslovakia separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This has been called the "Velvet Divorce" in political parlance, due to the amicable and peaceful nature of the separation. (Of course, Czechoslovakia itself had come into existence by the breakup of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I.)
We could go on an on with historical examples of how nation-states separated--by either violent or non-violent means. So, why is it that Christians, pastors, and churchmen will not so much as bat an eye at the
numerous State separations that have taken place over the centuries, but suddenly become righteously indignant when discussing the American South's attempted separation from the Union in 1861--or even of the 13 Colonies' separation from Great Britain in 1776?
And while we are on the subject of hypocrisy, how dare any Church or pastor denounce State secession or separation on one hand and then turn around and celebrate Independence Day on July 4? How dare they host "patriotic" services and invite special patriotic speakers and singers to come into their churches? How dare they encourage civic involvement and responsibility (such as voting)? How dare they promote participation in the US military, if they believe that there was no legitimacy to America's separation from
Great Britain? Plus, how dare today's preachers and Bible teachers condemn what George Washington and the boys did in the American Revolution, and then turn around and celebrate the freedom and independence that was produced and preserved by that same Revolution?
Now, let's look at the Biblical record.
The right of State secession is rooted and grounded in the Word of God. Did the Holy Spirit not inspire the New Testament writer to say, "Now all these things [Old Testament history] happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come"?
(I Corinthians 10:11 KJV)
The last time I checked, the Holy Bible contained 66 Books, not 27; and Jehovah's introduction of civil government in the Old Testament is replete with examples of State secession.
Did God not separate the nations at the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter 11? He certainly did. In fact, the goal of global union was first attempted at Babel. At this point, it was God, Himself, Who was the sponsor of
"State separation."
Also, did God not "separate" Israel from Egypt by a mighty and miraculous deliverance? Even the theocracy of Israel under Moses served as a presage for future State autonomy. God divided the nation of Israel into 12 independent tribes. Each tribe had its own individuality, leaders (under Moses, of course), territory, etc. Remember, too, when Israel crossed the Jordan River and entered the Promised Land that 2 1/2 tribes (Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh) chose to stay on the east side of Jordan. This was happily allowed by Joshua and the other 9 1/2 tribes.
In fact, the Book of Judges is simply a redundant account of tyrannical powers enslaving God's people and the subsequent rise of deliverers (directed and empowered by God) to separate the nation, thus providing
His people with freedom and independence.
Furthermore, the divided kingdom of Israel provides a classic Biblical example of the right of State secession. As a result of Solomon's sin (I Kings 11:11-13), God allowed the nation to be divided. "Israel" was the
name of the Northern Kingdom, comprising 10 tribes. Its first king was Jeroboam, and the capital was Samaria. "Judah" was the name of the Southern Kingdom, comprising 2 tribes, Judah and Benjamin. Rehoboam was Judah's first king, and the capital was Jerusalem.
These two nations--which shared the same history, heritage, ancestry, language, etc.--engaged in friendly (and sometimes not-so-friendly) commerce and trade, participated in mutually beneficial dialogue and diplomacy, and even sometimes allied themselves in times of war. And, yes, they also occasionally became mortal enemies against each other. Between the two, the Southern Kingdom enjoyed far and away more of the favor of Heaven. It had (for the most part) better leaders, had a more vibrant spiritual life, and was afforded more peace. In fact, Jehovah, through His prophets, often warned Judah against the propensity to become entangled with the idolatrous affairs of the Northern State. In general, the more Judah remained
separate from Israel, the more successful it was. Conversely, the more entangled Judah became with Israel, the more dreadful the consequences became.
Judah's secession from Israel not only gave it a more peaceful and productive existence, it extended its liberty by over 100 years. Israel went into Assyrian captivity in 721 B.C., while Judah went into Babylonian
captivity in 586 B.C.
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that would preclude states from seceding, separating, or declaring independence from one another. In fact, just the opposite is true. The examples from the Bible should be plentiful enough for any rational person to understand that the God of Heaven has given mankind the individual and collective volition to choose (or reject) our leaders, government, etc. (I have already dealt with Romans 13, et al., so I will not belabor that issue again at this juncture.)
To read my columns on Romans 13, go here:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=218
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070810.html
I also recommend that one reads Dr. Greg Dixon's treatise on Romans 13
at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/favearchive20090210.html
Given the socio-political climate in America these days, the subject of State separation and independence needs to again be discussed; for should the central government in Washington, D.C., continue its propensity to violate its contract with the states (the US Constitution) and persist in its current nefariousness--to abridge liberty and State sovereignty--it could one day become necessary for states to reconsider separating from
the Union. And should that day come, Christians need to have a clear conscience in knowing that such an act would (if lawfully done) be in perfect harmony with not only the US Constitution and Natural Law, but also Scriptural principle.
P.S. And now that the reader understands the Scriptural correctness of State separation, it is incumbent that he or she reads Tim's recent column entitled "Plan For Freedom." See it at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1244
P.P.S. After enduring a serious hack job against our web site, I am happy to report that we are now fully functional again. I apologize for the several days of interruption that this sabotage caused. Please feel free to
visit and interact with my web site once more. My site is located at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3 children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6
Better a Birther than a COLBer!
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/?p=253
Obama's Frightening New Attack On The Constitution
By Robert Moon
Washington Examiner
Imagine how people would have reacted if President Bush had been caught trying to sneak through legislation that would have illegally given him the power to take over and destroy any financial institution he pleased, on a whim, with zero checks and balances. That is what Democrats are quietly rushing through Congress for Obama. It's called H.R. 4173 and it is already through the House. If it is signed into law, Obama will literally gain the kind of terrifying, un-checked power usually reserved for fascists and Third World dictators
Read More
************
The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama, could be stopped in his tracks if EVERYBODY would demand their representatives demand, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
It's better to be a smart Birther than a dumb COLBer! The treacherous creature from Kenya has already run rampant for too long, trampling the Constitution, disrespecting We The People and wrecking our Republic. Hussein Obama must be stopped!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Obama's Frightening New Attack On The Constitution
By Robert Moon
Washington Examiner
Imagine how people would have reacted if President Bush had been caught trying to sneak through legislation that would have illegally given him the power to take over and destroy any financial institution he pleased, on a whim, with zero checks and balances. That is what Democrats are quietly rushing through Congress for Obama. It's called H.R. 4173 and it is already through the House. If it is signed into law, Obama will literally gain the kind of terrifying, un-checked power usually reserved for fascists and Third World dictators
Read More
************
The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama, could be stopped in his tracks if EVERYBODY would demand their representatives demand, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
It's better to be a smart Birther than a dumb COLBer! The treacherous creature from Kenya has already run rampant for too long, trampling the Constitution, disrespecting We The People and wrecking our Republic. Hussein Obama must be stopped!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Was Hussein Obama born in the USA?
Another state considers Arizona eligibility plan
Georgia lawmaker says when Congress won't act, 'states have a duty to step up'
------------------------------
Posted: April 23, 2010
11:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Another state has begun considering a law like an Arizona plan approved by the state House there that would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility before being allowed on the election ballot.
Georgia Rep. Mark Hatfield, part of a coalition in his state supporting new election requirements, says it's really the responsibility of members of Congress to make sure a foreign-born individual or dual citizen isn't installed in the White House.
But he said without the leadership in Washington necessary to do that, it is up to states to tackle the issue. Arizona's plan is closest to adoption, awaiting only approval from the state Senate.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Oklahoma also has pending in a legislative committee a referendum that could be put before voters...
"No citizen of the United States should ever have any doubts about the qualifications of the individual who occupies the highest office in the land," Hatfield said on the Liddy show.
Click here to read more
************
The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama, has yet to bring to light his long form birth certificate. Something's amiss!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Georgia lawmaker says when Congress won't act, 'states have a duty to step up'
------------------------------
Posted: April 23, 2010
11:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Another state has begun considering a law like an Arizona plan approved by the state House there that would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility before being allowed on the election ballot.
Georgia Rep. Mark Hatfield, part of a coalition in his state supporting new election requirements, says it's really the responsibility of members of Congress to make sure a foreign-born individual or dual citizen isn't installed in the White House.
But he said without the leadership in Washington necessary to do that, it is up to states to tackle the issue. Arizona's plan is closest to adoption, awaiting only approval from the state Senate.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Oklahoma also has pending in a legislative committee a referendum that could be put before voters...
"No citizen of the United States should ever have any doubts about the qualifications of the individual who occupies the highest office in the land," Hatfield said on the Liddy show.
Click here to read more
************
The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama, has yet to bring to light his long form birth certificate. Something's amiss!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Where's Obama's transparency and accountability?
Groundswell of Support Growing for Anti-Obama Rally
by Hana Levi Julian (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/)
A groundswell of support is building in anticipation of the upcoming anti-Obama demonstration set for this coming Sunday, April 25, in New York City, outside the Israel Consulate. According to organizer Beth Gilinsky, head of the Jewish Action Alliance, groups are still calling to express their support and register for the event.
************
The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama, has yet to bring to light his long form birth certificate. Something's definitely not kosher!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
by Hana Levi Julian (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/)
A groundswell of support is building in anticipation of the upcoming anti-Obama demonstration set for this coming Sunday, April 25, in New York City, outside the Israel Consulate. According to organizer Beth Gilinsky, head of the Jewish Action Alliance, groups are still calling to express their support and register for the event.
************
The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, Obama/Soetoro/Obama, has yet to bring to light his long form birth certificate. Something's definitely not kosher!
http://www.davidbenariel.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
