This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071002.html

Let me remind readers that our directory of Black Regiment pastors is now online. We also have a list of cities in which people have told us they are looking for Black Regiment pastors. We have even listed a few Black Regiment pastors who are looking for churches. Be sure to visit this page often, because we are constantly adding new pastors to the directory.

See the Black Regiment directory at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php

In addition, we have added several new videos to our web site. These include three of my recent Sunday addresses. Titles added are "The Master's Plan," "Labor Not To Be Rich," and "A Labor Day Sermon." Watch these sermon videos at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sermonvideo.html

Plus, we have uploaded a speech by Professor Steven Yates that I believe everyone needs to watch. I recently had the privilege of sharing the platform with Professor Yates during the Upcountry Freedom Conference in Greenville, South Carolina. He delivered this speech during that conference. I liked it so much that I asked my staff to upload it to our web site. It is now online. We have titled his speech, "Professor Steven Yates Speaks To The Remnant." It is a fantastic presentation. I encourage all my readers to watch it. See it at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Steven_Yates.html

We have also uploaded my radio interview with Vic Eliason on the nationwide radio broadcast "Crosstalk." That interview is located at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Crosstalk2.html

And there is one more: I was recently invited to participate in a live TV forum on CNN Headline News "Prime News with Erica Hill." This interview has been uploaded at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/TV_CNN_Questions.html

As always, there is never any charge to view or download our videos. One may access these videos using either a dial up or high speed modem. Plus, one may download an audio version as an MP3 file for use in one's IPOD.

Let me remind readers, too, that we will be printing THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS next month. These are 50 of the most notable documents of American history in one volume. We are currently taking reservations. To reserve your copies, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Again, thank you for reading my commentaries.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070928.html

"Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats." This is the title of a much under-reported news story, which appeared in The Examiner on September 24th. The Examiner opens the story by saying, "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."

The story stems from an interview with White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, for The Examiner's Senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon's new book, "The Evangelical President."

The Examiner said "Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that 'even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.'" Bolten went on to say that "He [Bush] wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it [the war in Iraq] out."

Bolten made it clear that Bush expects the war in Iraq to continue "[n]o matter who the president is, no matter what party . . ."

The Examiner story also reported, "A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected."

The White House official said, "They [the Democratic frontrunners] are being advised by smart people. We've got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.

"And there is recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence [in Iraq] by the United States . . ."

The Examiner also quotes Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, "And I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."

As you read the above, did you not ask the question, "Why is this not a front page story in the mainstream media?" If the media truly wanted to do its job, this story would be page one in every major newspaper and the lead story on every television and radio network news show. But it's not. Why? Because the powers that control the mainstream media are the same ones who control the two major parties and they don't want the American people to know that the "fix" is already in. George W. Bush knows it; Hillary Clinton knows it; Dick Cheney knows it; the CFR knows it; Democrat and Republican insiders know it; and now you know it.

I have attempted to warn my readers that the Bushes and Clintons have been "best buds" for years (see http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070717.html). My initial source for this report was someone who was among the Clintons' closest friends for much of his life. Whatever acrimony one may perceive to exist between the two families is purely for show. Democrats expect the Clintons to lambaste the Bushes. Republicans expect the Bushes to do the same thing to the Clintons. So they do. It is all political theater.

For that matter, Bill Sammon's new book promoting the idea that Bush is an "Evangelical President" is more political theater. Bush has simply hijacked the evangelical movement in order to push forward a globalist New World Order agenda.

Believe me, the Bushes and Clintons are friends, and have been for decades--at least since George H.W. Bush was President and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. At least since then--probably longer.

However, the connection between the Bushes and Clintons is much deeper than that. Both families are also part of the inside cabal of New World Order globalists. They share the same clubs, the same parties, and the same agenda. Why else do you think that when G.W. Bush became President he did not undo anything Bill Clinton had done? For the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not undo anything that G.W. Bush has done when she becomes President--and that includes the Iraq war.

Mark it down: Hillary will keep U.S. troops in Iraq. She will also follow through with whatever other military plans Bush has already put in place. She will continue with Bush's push for the North American Union, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAFTA Superhighway. She will continue the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, and even Bush's "enemy combatant" classification for American citizens. She will also do nothing to restore Posse Comitatus.

Those Democrats who really believe they are voting for "change" when they vote for Hillary next year are in for a rude awakening. They will awaken to the same reality that those who thought they were voting for change when they voted for Dubya have come to realize: it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether G.W. or Hillary is elected President. They are both marching to the same drummer. (Neither would it matter should Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or John Edwards become President.) The "fix" is in. So much so that G.W. Bush is already privately counseling Hillary on what to do after she becomes President.

I tried to warn my readers of this connection as far back as 2002 (see http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2002/cbarchive_20020913.html). I thought the set up would put Hillary in the White House in 2004, but obviously, my timing was off one election. 2008 is the year the global elite--with much help from both the Clinton and Bush machines--will put Hillary in the White House.

It is no accident, my friends, that there is no "top tier" contender in the GOP this year that is able to galvanize grassroots Republicans. Neither is it an accident that Bush's policies are increasingly unpopular, thus further alienating both the Republican and conservative base and the American people in general from the GOP ticket next year. Dubya is merely setting up a Hillary victory in much the same way that Daddy Bush set up a victory for Bill back in 1992.

Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the "anointed" pick of her fellow elitists to become President of the United States in 2008.

Obviously, a wholesale political revolution could derail the plans of the elitist egomaniacs who control our country right now, but I don't believe the American people, and especially the pastors (who have the most power to accomplish this task), have the stomach for it.

The only way for the American people to thwart the plans of the international cabal currently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and New York City is by a massive rejection of both major parties' prominent Presidential candidates. This would require wholesale support for independent-minded, non-elitist candidates such as Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes. Even better, a grassroots uprising of support for independent constitutionalists such as Jerome Corsi or Judge Roy Moore--on a Constitution Party ticket (see http://www.constitutionparty.com/)--would put the elitists in retreat for decades to come. However, I see little hope for such a revolution. (Then again, there was little hope for George Washington and the boys either.)

So, come November 2008, Hillary Clinton will be your President, and she will continue the same basic policies of one George W. Bush, who continued the same basic policies of one Bill Clinton, who continued the same basic policies of one George Herbert Walker Bush. One would think that eventually the American people would begin to catch on. Until they do, however, the "fix" is in.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070925.html

As a conservative Baptist pastor for more than thirty years and a former executive director for the Moral Majority, my roots in the Religious Right run pretty deep. However, over the last several years, I have become a consistent critic of the Religious Right, as faithful readers of this column already know.

The main objection I have with the Religious Right is they have (for the most part) given President George W. Bush (and the Republican Party in general) a complete and total pass. Over the past nearly seven years now, Bush and GOP leaders have betrayed most every principle that I ever understood the Religious Right to stand for. Yet, our national Christian leaders (and local pastors throughout America) have been content to look the other way and say nothing. Or worse yet, they have actually defended Bush's liberal, big-spending, anti-freedom, and unconstitutional ways. In a nutshell, for a seat at the king's table, the Religious Right sold out its principles.

Another criticism I have with our national Christian leaders is the seeming shallowness they display. About the only thing a Republican politician has to do to curry favor with our illustrious conservative Christian leaders is to say that they oppose abortion and homosexuality. Whether they actually mean it or intend to actually do anything about it after winning an election doesn't seem to matter to a tinker's dam, however. No, it is actually worse than that. Our Christian leaders do not even seem to understand how to deal with these issues in a constitutional republic.

For example, pro-life congressmen such as Ron Paul of Texas are not "acceptable" to many conservative Christians, because Paul actually wants to honor his oath of office to "support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which means he is not prepared to cede to the federal government that which the Constitution has given to the states. This means that Paul understands that the proper way to handle the abortion issue is to pass a "Sanctity of Life" bill, which would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies (thereby giving them complete governmental protection under the law) and would exempt the issue from the jurisdiction of the Court. This would have the effect of immediately overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand as we know it. However, not only did the entire Republican leadership in both houses of Congress and President George W. Bush not support Dr. Paul when he introduced such a bill, neither did the leaders of the Religious Right.

In fact, as a whole, the Religious Right continues to ignore Ron Paul's candidacy, even though he would probably be the best friend that conservative Christians ever had in the White House. Alas, however, there seems to be a giant disconnect in the thinking of many conservative Christians as to the primacy of constitutional government and how it relates to religious liberty. As a result, many conservative Christians continue to support big government policies, when they are promulgated by Republicans.

(Please see my column on this subject at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070227.html.)

Sadly, I cannot think of a prominent national conservative Christian leader who has dared to follow the courageous example of the prophet Nathan and say to King Bush, "Thou art the man." Instead, they have served as lackeys and doormats for President Bush. In doing so, they have lost much credibility, and dare I say, honor.

It even grieves me to say that should the presidential race next year come down to Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, many conservative Christians would support Giuliani. This is in spite of the fact that Giuliani is not only as bad as Clinton in virtually every area of significance, but, in many ways, is actually worse. Any Christian who would argue that his or her convictions would not allow them to vote for Clinton would have to turn around and surrender those very same convictions in order to vote for Giuliani. In other words, in a Clinton-Giuliani race, there is no "lesser of two evils."

Therefore, since I have been critical of the compromise of our Christian leaders, it is only fair that I would commend them when appropriate. Accordingly, I want to praise James Dobson's recent statements that he could not support either Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or John McCain (albeit I don't believe his rejection of Thompson and McCain are necessarily for the right reasons).

Regarding Giuliani, Dobson said, "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's--Dobson's?--choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran--or if worse comes to worst--not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

Hooray! It is about time that some of our national conservative Christian leaders began telling the truth about these phony conservatives in the Republican Party. However, Dobson needs to keep going and list the liberal Mitt Romney, and also CFR member (along with Thompson), womanizer, and elitist Newt Gingrich as unacceptable candidates.

Giuliani is especially revolting. Dobson is right to say he will vote third party or not vote at all rather than vote for Giuliani. After my recent exposé on Giuliani (see http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070921.html), numerous residents of New York City wrote me to express their agreement with my assertions.

I seldom reprint the responses of readers. However, one New Yorker wrote the following, which seemed to reflect the feelings of most every New Yorker who responded to my column:

"I lived in NYC for most of my life. Giuliani was the worst mayor the city has ever had. I and millions of New Yorkers [are] well aware of Giuliani's duplicitous, mean, autocratic, and just downright scary personality. His father was a small time mafia enforcer that did prison time. Rudy has many of his father's characteristics.

"Thank you for helping to expose this Hitler in waiting. As mayor of NYC, he trashed and spat upon people's rights, especially minorities. He inflamed and divided the peoples of NYC. He opened the city coffers to his corporate crony plunderers and left the city with a monumental deficit.

"Many New Yorkers have been blogging for years, trying to alert the people to this madman's dictatorial and corrupt ways. Thanks for your help."

This email response was typical of the many I received from New Yorkers.

It is high time for each and every one of us who claims to love freedom and liberty, who claims to appreciate our history and heritage, and who claims a desire to perpetuate a free and independent America for our posterity to stop promoting the insane "lesser of two evils" mantra and to start supporting only those men and women who have PROVEN they deserve our support, party or political label notwithstanding.

Dobson is right about Giuliani. I only wish he had been willing to tell the truth about one George W. Bush. Maybe then we would not be in the mess we are in today, because Bush is the precursor to Giuliani and Clinton. And those who supported and fawned over Dubya only waxed the skis for Giuliani and Clinton.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070921.html

Former New York City Mayor and Republican Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said this week that he was "liberals' worst nightmare." However, the truth is, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

That Rudy Giuliani is currently trying to cast himself as a conservative is beyond laughable--it is hilarious. This is a man who is unabashedly pro-abortion. He has been seen walking down Fifth Avenue with thousands of homosexuals demanding "gay rights." He himself is a cross-dresser. He has had numerous marriages and only God knows how many sexual affairs. He has been one of the country's most radical proponents of gun control. He made New York a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and is a strong proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens. As a prosecutor, his abuse of power and disregard for law are legendary. (See http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts208.html.)

In addition, Rudy Giuliani is a senior partner in the law firm that "represents CITGO, the oil company controlled by Venezuela's anti-American and terrorist-supporting ruler Hugo Chavez." Giuliani's law firm also acts "as the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra, the Spanish firm that has been granted the right to operate a toll road in the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) project."

(Please read Cliff Kincaid's entire column for more on Giuliani's shady and untoward activities at http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff149.htm.)

Yes, my friends, the umbilical cord connecting the SPP, NAFTA Superhighway and burgeoning North American Union is also connected to Rudy Giuliani.

Yet, Rudy Giuliani wants people to believe that he is "liberals' worst nightmare"? Who is he kidding? Giuliani is a liberal. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is worse than a liberal. He is a liberal that likes to hurt people. I tell you the truth, Rudy Giuliani scares me far more than Hillary Clinton does. Far more. I'll say it right here: if the 2008 Presidential election comes down to Hillary vs. Giuliani, Hillary is the "lesser of two evils." That's how bad Giuliani is.

Any Christian who would vote for Rudy Giuliani needs to check out his or her salvation. And before a conservative could vote for Giuliani, he would have to surrender every conviction and principle he ever held.

As for the Republican Party, if it nominates Rudy Giuliani as its Presidential candidate next year, conservatism will be forever vanquished from the Party. George W. Bush has already just about destroyed conservatism within the GOP. A Giuliani nomination would finish the job.

Rudy Giuliani likes to paint himself as being tough on terrorism. The truth is, Rudy Giuliani is a warmonger. A Giuliani Presidency would mean an expansion of military interventionism and preemptive war like you can't imagine. One can call me what one wants, but I am warning the American people, just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller tried to warn the German people about Hitler: Rudy Giuliani is a monster. Anyone who is paying attention knows this is true.

For example, just two days ago, Giuliani urged expanding NATO to include Australia, India, Israel, Japan, and Singapore, along with "a whole group of others that we could put on that list." As originally designed, NATO's purpose was to counterbalance the former Soviet Union's influence in Europe. However, Giuliani wants to expand NATO into a "global body." He also said he wants to "redouble" the war in Afghanistan. He further said the U.S. should consider the possibility of a "large war with a nation state." So, could Giuliani be planning a preemptive "large war" with other countries? One can only wonder.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks that George W. Bush is obsessed with domestic spying and surveillance, just wait until Giuliani becomes President. You can count on him pressing his anti-Fourth Amendment and anti-Second Amendment agendas to the nth degree through all sorts of executive orders and signing statements.

You can also expect amnesty for illegal aliens to be quickly achieved under a Giuliani administration, along with the completion of the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, this will also be the case if Hillary is elected President, except that if Hillary is leading the charge, many will oppose it; whereas if Giuliani leads the charge, they won't.

This brings up the other thing that makes a Giuliani Presidency so dangerous: the total lack of resistance that rank-and-file conservatives (including Christians) have demonstrated when Republicans control the White House. Absent resistance from his own party and from grassroots conservatives, a Giuliani administration would be left free to perpetrate radical fascist and imperialistic policies completely unfettered.

Everything about Rudy Giuliani smacks of fraud, indecency, greed, and power-lust. Even the wave of 9/11, which Giuliani is riding to the Presidential election, is fraught with duplicity. In fact, New York City firefighters are so fearful their former mayor might succeed in his quest to become President that they came out against his candidacy in a dramatic video. I urge all my readers to watch this moving video presentation. See it at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3367581&page=1.

Yes, Rudy Giuliani is a nightmare all right. But not just for liberals. He is a nightmare for conservatives, Christians, independents, constitutionalists, and for people the world over. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani is a threat to freedom, constitutional government, the rule of law, traditional morality, and to national sovereignty and independence. As I said, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070918.html

I am pleased to announce that our initial "Black Regiment" directory is now online. We received more than 800 responses to my initial appeal back in July. See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070724.html. Obviously, we had to sift through all these recommendations and also contact each one individually in order to obtain their consent to be listed. The initial list is now up and can be seen here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php.

For those who may not be aware of what I am talking about, the "Black Regiment" (also called the "Black-Robed Regiment") was a group of patriot-pastors in Colonial America who greatly assisted America's fight for freedom by courageously preaching the Biblical principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits. These were preachers from virtually every protestant denomination throughout the colonies. The moniker came from the tendency of these preachers to wear long, black robes in their pulpits.

My attempt to identify modern-day preachers who will emulate our Christian forebears and once again "proclaim liberty throughout the land" stems from the numerous requests I have from people all over America desiring to locate such pastors. People across the country are desperate to find courageous men of God who are not afraid to preach the truth to power. Men who are not enamored with popularity or position. Men who are not trying to be politically correct or appeal to the wealthy and affluent. Men who love America's Christian history and heritage. Men who support and defend the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Men who are willing to publicly condemn injustice, duplicity, and infidelity (to the Constitution and the American people) regardless of which political party or individual politician promotes it.

Our "Black Regiment" list will allow Christians throughout the United States who understand what is going on to locate likeminded pastors and churches for the purpose of fellowship and worship. At this time, our list is rather small, but I am convinced it will quickly grow. We will also include a list of cities where people have told us they are looking for a "Black Regiment" preacher.

If you are a pastor who wishes to be counted with the "Black Regiment" and do not see your name, please contact us, and we will add your name and church immediately. Be sure to send us the appropriate contact information. In addition, if you desire to find a "Black Regiment" pastor in your area, please let us know, and we will add that city to our "looking" list as well.

Once again, to visit our "Black Regiment" directory, go to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php.

I welcome your feedback and trust you will help me spread the word. Without the leadership of America's pastors and preachers, our country is lost. I personally believe that the window of opportunity to turn America off its current course of self-destruction is very small. We must answer the clarion call NOW. Will you help me?

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070914.html

Many conservatives (including Christian conservatives) seem to be jumping on the Fred Thompson bandwagon. As far as Republican presidential contenders go, the biggest loser of the Thompson surge is Mitt Romney. Many conservatives were supporting Romney only because they perceived him as being the best chance to beat Rudy Giuliani. A Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani presidential election is a conservative's worst nightmare. Romney has the charm and money and is now saying the "right" things. Hence, he has enjoyed moderate support in the early goings of this campaign season. However, Romney's liberal track record is very disconcerting to conservatives. In their hearts, conservatives cannot trust Romney.

The entrance of Fred Thompson in the presidential race immediately took a toll on the Romney campaign. Romney's support is dropping like the temperature in northern Idaho in the wintertime. That trend will probably continue, as more conservatives catch the Thompson wave.

The problem is, Thompson is not a conservative. Worse still (for the GOP), Thompson cannot beat Hillary in a general election. Mark my words, if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee next November, Hillary Clinton is your next president.

For that matter, I see only one Republican contender who might be able to beat Hillary in the 2008 general election: Ron Paul. Yes, you read it right. Ron Paul.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, conservative Christians will stay home or vote third party. (It is past time for conservative Christians to abandon the GOP, anyway. I encourage readers to check out the Constitution Party as a viable alternative. See http://www.constitutionparty.com/). A Republican cannot win the White House without widespread support from evangelical Christians. And Giuliani will never have widespread support from evangelical Christians.

Newt Gingrich is toying with the idea of entering the race, but the truth is out about Newt. His infidelities, his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and his past betrayal of conservative principles precede him. Newt is damaged goods. He has little chance of obtaining the Republican nomination, and even if he did, he has no chance of beating Hillary. None. Zero. Zilch.

The only Republican with the potential to pull an upset victory over Clinton is Ron Paul. He is extremely popular among constitutionalists, independents, and many Christians (including me). He is doing very well in fundraising and on the Internet. And if Paul's message was given a fair hearing, evangelical Christians and traditional conservatives would come to support him.

The only reason that some conservative Christians do not already support Ron Paul is because they, themselves, do not understand constitutional government. Years of Republican chicanery and compromise have taken a toll on conservatives to the point that many of them don't understand truth when they see it. However, this could change. The more people learn about Ron Paul and constitutional government, the more they like him and it.

On the other hand, the more people learn about Fred Thompson, the more they will dislike him. As with Gingrich, Thompson is a member of the sinister cabal, the CFR, whose principle purpose for existence seems to be the construction of one-world government and the destruction of U.S. independence and sovereignty. This means Thompson will do nothing to stop illegal immigration. (See http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109050083/1002). He will do nothing to stand in the way of the emerging North American Union, and the NAFTA Superhighway, and he will continue the push for globalization.

In addition, Fred Thompson is the personification of a Washington insider-lobbyist. Thompson was a lobbyist for twenty years before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He represented organizations like the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association and deposed Haitian President Aristide. He continued lobbying after he left the Senate, including representing a British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died from asbestos exposure. In fact, Thompson's presidential campaign is literally overflowing with advisors and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296339,00.html). If Thompson was elected President, he would be the country's first Lobbyist-in-Chief.

On the life issue, Fred Thompson's record is clearly pro-choice. In 1991 and 1992, Thompson was a paid lobbyist for the pro-abortion organization, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. He also lobbied against the Republican Party's pro-life plank. According to Terry Jeffrey, "[W]hen Fred Thompson was in the United States Senate, both times he ran for the Senate he ran as a pro-choice candidate."

One of the Religious Right's most respected leaders, Richard Viguerie, recently said this about Fred Thompson: "Fred Thompson's record may appear to be 'conservative,' but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President."

However, there is another glaring (and I mean glaring) reason why any Republican presidential contender outside Ron Paul will not defeat Hillary next November: every other Republican presidential contender supports the Iraq war. That means every one of them (except Ron Paul) is completely out of touch with over two-thirds of the American electorate. And the longer our troops keep dying in Iraq, the more out of touch the GOP will become with a vast majority of the American people.

President Bush has already made it clear that he intends for American troops to remain in Iraq for years--if not decades--to come. And it also seems clear that the GOP presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) plan to follow Bush's madness.

Republicans need to wake up to reality: people are sick of George Bush, and they are sick of the Iraq war. Good grief! In less time than our troops have been in Iraq, our men and women in uniform defeated the combined forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy during World War II. In Iraq, we have not been able to secure the city of Baghdad.

When America's top military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, was asked if all the efforts in Iraq--including the latest surge--make America safer, his answer was an astounding, "I don't know." That is an incredible statement. After more than four years of combat in a country approximately the size of Texas, more than one-half trillion dollars in cost, and the sacrifice of thousands of American lives, our top military commander cannot honestly say that America is any safer. Yet, Bush says we are "winning," and he wants our troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I dare say that by the time November 2008 rolls around, support for the Iraq war could be so low that the Republican Party may be lucky to even be competitive in the national elections, no matter who their candidate is (unless it is Ron Paul). This is because every single one of the other GOP presidential contenders (including Fred Thompson) is on record as supporting a continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq. In addition, most of them are on record as supporting an expansion of the war into other parts of the Middle East. (Interestingly enough, however, none of them wants to discuss--much less threaten--the real sponsors of terrorism: Russia and China.)

That Fred Thompson is surging to the position of Republican presidential frontrunner means that conservatives are desperate. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be desperate enough to look at their own erroneous policies. Neither are they willing to look at the recipe for their own recovery: principled, constitutional government.

I already hear the fat lady warming up.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070911.html

First, I need to correct something I said in my last column.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070907.html

In the column, I referred to Alan Stang's book "Not Holier Than Thou," in which he points out that President Bush has appointed numerous known homosexuals to high public office, just as did his predecessor, Bill Clinton. I included in that list former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci, who was appointed as U.S. Ambassador to Canada. I misquoted Alan Stang in that statement. Cellucci is not homosexual. However, his record as governor is extremely "pro-homosexual," which is the way I should have worded it. I apologize for the error.

Now, to the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon building.

Contrary to the claims of President Bush, the United States is not only just as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as it was in 2001, it is more vulnerable. This is due directly to the blunders and negligence of the Bush administration.

For one thing, the U.S. borders and ports remain wide open. There has been no serious effort on behalf of the federal government to thwart the invasion (and that is exactly what it is) of illegal aliens across our southern border.

Not only has President Bush done nothing to secure our borders, he has just last week opened the door for Mexican trucks to come unimpeded across our southern border. These trucks will have free access to our entire country. Can one imagine the amount of drug trafficking, illegal aliens, and even potential terrorists that will be smuggled across our borders in these trucks? Plus, think of the safety concerns these drivers and trucks will bring to America's highways.

In addition, the Bush administration has done nothing to slow the flow of legal immigration from countries that our own State Department identifies as "terrorist" nations. Virtually every Muslim country in the Middle East routinely sends students and professionals to the U.S. via student visas, work visas, etc. They even serve in America's armed forces and in our security agencies. This is insane!

Yet, President Bush would have us believe that he is fighting a "war on terrorism" by invading Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. However, the war in Iraq has done little to fight terrorism, and has done much to assist it.

Instead of invading a country with no ties to 9/11, we should have followed Ron Paul's advice. Congress should have passed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, and sent our forces on a specific and narrow mission to take out bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation." This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

A few days following the attacks on 9/11, and drawing from our own history and Constitution, Congressman Paul proposed the following to his fellow members of Congress:

"If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?

"The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.

"Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.

"Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented."

Had we followed Dr. Paul's counsel, Osama bin Laden and most of his al-Qaeda terrorists would no doubt be dead, our troops would not be bogged down in another no-win war in Iraq, and America would not be hated and despised by almost everyone in the world as it is today.

Following the attacks on 9/11, the world (for the most part) held America in sympathy. Therefore, a narrowly focused, constitutional, and direct reprisal would have been completely understood and supported by virtually all of the world's leaders and peoples. As it is now, the United States is viewed around the world as an imperialistic and warmongering monster. Not to mention the kind of resentment and animosity our invasion of Iraq has produced among Muslim people throughout the world. In fact, our invasion and occupation of Iraq is al-Qaeda's biggest recruitment tool. As a result, there are actually more al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq today than there were before we invaded Iraq.

Plus, just as Ron Paul warned, the Bush administration and a compliant congress have used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to assault the constitutional liberties of the American people. The USA Patriot Act has all but demolished the 4th Amendment, and has turned America into a virtual surveillance society. As far as liberty is concerned, we have far more to fear from Washington, D.C., than from Baghdad.

George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most dangerous blunders of all time. I am not sure that America will fully recover from this debacle for the next half century. When one considers the moral failures, the economic ramifications, the strain on military readiness, the rise of anti-American hatred, the potential for future terrorism, and the loss of America's allegiance to "just war" philosophy surrounding the Iraq war, the total damage to our country is incalculable.

It makes one wonder whether the 9/11 attackers did not win after all.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070831.html

Free republics are not known to have long life expectancies. At the ripe old age of two hundred and thirty-one, 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 rebellious colonists under their power and control.

You see, 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 unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor set-back when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/ McCain/ Kennedy/ Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that George W. Bush is going to let that bill lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. President Bush will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law before he leaves office. I would not be surprised if he attempted some sort of Executive Order or Presidential Directive in order to accomplish it. You see, it is absolutely essential to the designers of despotism that our southern border be eliminated. Absolutely essential.

Yes, I am saying it: George W. Bush is part of the global elite that seeks America's entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, all of the "top tier" presidential candidates from both major parties will offer zero resistance to this obstinate oligarchy. That is why it will not matter to a hoot in Hades if it is Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Gingrich, or Thompson who is elected. (Forget McCain; his presidential goose is cooked.)

About the only presidential contenders who seem to have a spirit of resistance to these scheming scoundrels are men such as Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. Forgive me for saying it, but while Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback seem to be nice guys and may not be directly involved in this collection of crafty clowns, they appear to be either too naïve to understand their subterfuge or too weak to oppose it. The result is the same either way.

There are men who do seem to know what is going on and would have the chutzpah to throw the globalist goons back across the ocean (or better yet, under it). I'm talking about men such as Judge Roy Moore, Jerome Corsi, and Alan Keyes. However, the media and political elite in Washington, D.C. and New York will see to it that these men are never given the spotlight of public attention.

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 citizens 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 hand-picked puppets positioned to take the reins from Dubya, and 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.

As for me and my house, we promise to never fit in with Bush's New World Order. I don't know what that means exactly, but it is a promise.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070828.html

Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/election2008.php

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

See the Freedom Index here: http://www.jbs.org/files/fi-110-1.pdf

Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment, go here: http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position.

In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070824.html

I just finished reading my current copy of The Times Examiner newspaper, which is published by my good friend Bob Dill in Greenville, South Carolina. This is an excellent independent paper that I can heartily recommend to my readers, by the way. I believe one hundred newspapers such as The Times Examiner would go a long way in helping to save this once-great republic. One does not have to live in Greenville to subscribe. I believe it is important that we support those brave, independent men who are fighting to preserve America's historic principles. Bob is doing just that through The Times Examiner newspaper.

Visit The Times Examiner at http://www.timesexaminer.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

In the Examiner, I could not help but notice the report which chronicles the release of a new film "on the life and faith of President Bush." The film is entitled "George W. Bush: FAITH in the White House." According to the report, the film claims that "not since Abe Lincoln has a sitting president talked so much about God as has President Bush."

The article also states, "Like no other president in the history of our nation, George W. Bush boldly, publicly, and genuinely lives out his faith on the job. According to BBC correspondent Justin Webb, 'Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles.'"

When I read things such as this, I am reminded of why I wrote a previous column entitled, "Why Are Christians So Gullible?" (Read it here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070807.html) Christians do seem to be among the most gullible people in the world. And nowhere is this gullibility observed more than in the way Christians relate to politics.

It seems that many Christians are willing to swallow just about anything if it is camouflaged in the garb of "Christianity." And George W. Bush is the ultimate example of this tragic reality.

Are there sincere Christians in subordinate positions within the Bush administration? Of course there are. Some of them may even "[hurry] down corridors carrying Bibles." Karl Rove was a master strategist. He constantly fed the Religious Right mega-helpings of carrots to bring them into the trap. Private phone calls, invitations to dinners and lunches, letters of appreciation, and the employment of many believers are among the many such tactics employed by Rove. But as Jesus plainly told us, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

I invite readers, especially Christian readers, to take the time to examine the record of George W. Bush. My staff has compiled a very thorough listing of Bush's record, which one may use to examine the "fruit" of this President. To view the Bush record, go here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html

Don't get me wrong. Nothing would please me more than to know that our President was a true Christian man. I believe our country is in desperate need of genuine Christian leaders. We need leaders who fear God, leaders who believe in honesty and truth, and leaders who will honor their oaths of office. Then again, I would be pleased to have such a leader in office, regardless of his or her Christian profession. One does not have to be a Christian to fear God, believe in honesty, and take seriously his obligation to obey the U.S. Constitution. In fact, I know some unbelievers whom I would trust much more than I would trust some professing Christians.

And speaking of praying, we know G.W. Bush has participated in prayers to the Muslim god, Allah. In fact, he is the first U.S. President to celebrate Ramadan in the White House. He is the also the first U.S. President to honor the Koran (a book that promotes the killing of non-Muslims) in a presidential inaugural address. And as far as I can tell, he is the first U.S. President to pray in a Shinto temple. So, can someone please tell us exactly which god it is to whom Bush prays?

However, it is President Bush's infatuation with fascism and globalism that should be of utmost concern to all Americans, especially Christians.

Without a doubt, George W. Bush has done more to threaten our constitutional liberties than any President since Woodrow Wilson. (Oh, yes, he claimed to be a Christian, too.) More than that, because Bush has convinced the Religious Right that he is one of them, they are willing to follow him down this pernicious path.

George Bush has allowed America's borders and ports to remain open, not only to illegal aliens, but also to potential terrorists. Our security agencies know that terrorists from the Middle East are coming across our southern border in great numbers. They know that America is just as vulnerable to a terrorist attack as it was before 9/11/01. How can a "Christian" president sleep at night, when he knows that his attempts to appease and accommodate Mexico and China are putting America's safety at risk? Yet, even this week, President Bush was in Canada to push forward with his plans to integrate the United States into a North American Community, which only serves to further facilitate increased illegal immigration.

At the same time that President Bush throws open the door of illegal immigration with its potential for terrorism, he hammers away at the constitutional liberties of the American people. Furthermore, his administration is fraught with secrecy and duplicity. It seems to me that the Bible has a little something to say about honesty.

Just last year, President Bush removed the historic protection of Posse Comitatus, which prevented U.S. troops from being used against American citizens. Would a true Christian do this? Adding more suspicion to an administration laden with suspicion, the Department of Homeland Security is currently enlisting the assistance of pastors to help promote gun confiscation in the event of another terrorist attack. Again, why would a Christian president authorize or condone such a thing? Beyond that, his infatuation with warrantless wiretaps and eavesdropping puts the liberty of every American at risk.

In addition, while claiming to be waging a war on terrorism in Iraq, President Bush is sending hundreds of millions of dollars of arms and munitions to his oil buddies in Saudi Arabia. This is in spite of the fact that Saudi Arabia has been the most aggressive supplier of Islamic terrorist activity of any nation in the world. Have Christians forgotten that the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers (along with Osama bin Laden) were not from Iraq, or even Iran, but Saudi Arabia?

Even if President Bush is a sincere Christian, he is, more often than not, sincerely wrong. Many would say that Jimmy Carter was a sincere Christian, but evangelical Christians did not give him a pass on bad policy decisions. Why should we give G.W. Bush a pass just because he calls himself a Christian? We shouldn't.

We don't need a President who claims to be a Christian but who runs roughshod over the Constitution and treats the liberties of the American people with frivolity. We don't need a President who says he is a Christian but who calls people who are concerned about his secret agreements with Mexico and Canada "comical." (Which is exactly what Bush said just a few days ago.) We don't need a President who bathes himself in the aura of Christianity but who leads America into an era of imperialism (and that is exactly what the world now perceives about us) with a penchant for preemptive war.

What we need is an old-fashioned AMERICAN President. A President who will put the interests of America above the interests of internationalists. A President who will stop selling out American workers to China and Mexico. A President who will keep his word to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. A President who will protect America's borders. A President who will stop using America's fighting men as the world's policemen. A President who is more concerned about the economic well-being of Americans than he is about constructing some "global economy" for the multinational corporations and international bankers. And, yes, a President who believes in telling the American people the truth. Show me a President that will do this, and I will be happy to support him, whether he tells me he prays or attends church or calls himself a Christian or not. And any President who does not do this, George W. Bush included, I will oppose, no matter what he calls himself.

Instead of watching blatantly biased films, which are only designed to deceive and dumb down Christian voters, we should be watching the actual actions and policies of our elected leaders. Perhaps, then, we would not only be less gullible, but we would also be able to hold our leaders accountable to the principles of good government--something most Christians are not doing now.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070821.html

Once again, the burden of responsibility to help maintain America's liberty rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. That should not surprise us, because it has always been this way. Part of what made America great was old fashioned, tell-it-like-it-is, no-nonsense preaching. Most of what we hear today is a bunch of mealy-mouthed, pussyfooting, ear-tickling, don't-offend-anyone preaching, which has largely contributed to America's current slippery slope into the sewer. But if you thought it could not get any worse, guess again.

A startling television news report from Shreveport, Louisiana has revealed a sinister plot hatched deep inside the diabolical brain cells of the Bush administration to use America's pulpits as promoters of tyranny. That is a strong statement, I know. But it is true.

According to KSLA television in Shreveport, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to use America's preachers to help pave the way for martial law in the event of another terrorist attack upon the United States.

The KSLA report (which you can read for yourself here: http://www.ksla.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=6937987) begins, "Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us."

The report continued by saying, "[G]un confiscation is exactly what happened during the state of emergency following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, along with forced relocation. U.S. Troops also arrived, something far easier to do now, thanks to last year's elimination of the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army troops from policing on American soil.

"If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie, 'The Siege', easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical. And that's exactly what the 'Clergy Response Team' helped accomplish in the wake of Katrina."

The report went on to say: "[C]lergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. 'In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation,' assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

"For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13."

Dear Reader, are you getting this?

In order to convince American citizens to surrender their firearms to the government during a time of martial law, DHS is enlisting the assistance of America's pastors. According to the DHS, my job as a church pastor, is to tell my congregation that, according to Romans 13, they must surrender their firearms when the government asks them to do so.

Of course, faithful readers of this column know that I have already addressed the Romans 13 question. See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070810.html.

For those who are ignorant of Romans 13, let me address the issue bluntly: According to Romans 13, every citizen is only bound to obey his or her governing official to the degree that the governing official does not violate the duty of the citizen to obey the "higher powers" which, for Americans, are God and the U.S. Constitution. In other words, no Christian can be ordered to disobey God, and no American citizen can be ordered to disobey the U.S. Constitution. Properly understood, Romans 13 teaches that each and every governing official (including the President of the United States and all those under him) must submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Article. VI. Paragraph. 3. of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

So, what does the Constitution say regarding the disarmament of American citizens? The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution could not be clearer: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did you get that? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." [Emphasis added]

Therefore, any attempt to disarm the American people must be viewed as an act of tyranny and must be resisted.

The right to keep and bear arms is rooted deep in American history. I remind readers that it was the attempted gun confiscation of the colonists' arms, which had been cached at Concord, Massachusetts, that directly precipitated the beginning of America's fight for independence.

America's founders were clear on this subject. Our first President, George Washington, called our firearms "the people's liberty teeth." Our third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, said, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

America's founders spoke unanimously on the subject. Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Samuel Adams said, "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

And what did the Lord Jesus Christ tell His followers on this subject? Jesus said in Luke 11:21, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." Did you see that? Jesus said that in order for a man's goods to be "in peace" it was necessary that he be ARMED. Now, I don't know about you, but I will take the word of Jesus over the word of a DHS official anytime.

Furthermore, Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36, "[H]e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Upon hearing the words of Jesus, Simon Peter responded by saying, "Lord, behold, here are two swords." (vs. 38) That means at least two of Jesus' disciples were armed with swords (the 1st Century equivalent of a modern handgun, something used for personal protection), and Jesus did not rebuke them or ask them to surrender their swords. He merely said, "It is enough."

I realize that after Simon Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of the man as soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told him to "put up thy sword." But notice, He did not tell him to "give up" his sword; he merely told him it was not time to use it, because it was in the plan and providence of God that Jesus be taken to Pilate, that He might be crucified for our sins.

Don't tell me that the Bible teaches pacifism, because it doesn't. I am a Christian, and I am a pastor. And I agree with Charlton Heston who said that they could have his guns "over my cold, dead hands." If DHS believes that I will ask my congregation to give up their firearms, they are grossly mistaken.

It also needs to be pointed out that, apparently, DHS must already be planning to declare martial law in the United States or else this kind of advanced strategy would not even be necessary. Why would they already be asking pastors to be prepared to request their church members give up their guns if they did not intend to declare martial law?

Now, what every single church-going Christian in America should immediately find out for themselves is, What does my pastor intend to do? Will he ask me to surrender my guns, or not? I highly encourage every reader who currently attends church to ask your pastor this question RIGHT NOW.

Of course, the next question Christians need to ask themselves is, What will I do if my pastor says he would ask me to surrender my guns to the government? I suggest that every church member in America settle this matter right now. And if you discover that your pastor would indeed ask you to surrender your guns (or equivocate by saying he would have to "pray about it") if asked to do so, you should immediately leave that church and find a pastor who believes the Bible and supports the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, if you do not currently own a firearm, you might want to heed the words of Jesus and go buy one.

So, once again, the burden of responsibility to help maintain America's liberty rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. Will we be preachers of truth or promoters of tyranny?

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070817.html

In this column on July 24 (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070724.html) I asked readers to help me locate The Black Regiment. These are patriot-preachers who have "understanding of the times, to know what [America] ought to do." (To borrow from I Chron. 12:32.)

Specifically, The Black Regiment is comprised of pastors who believe in constitutional government. They support the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Their loyalties lie with Biblical and historic American principles, not political parties or politicians. They understand the importance of national sovereignty and independence. They oppose any attempt to merge the United States into any kind of regional or hemispheric government, whether it be political or commercial. They oppose preemptive wars of aggression. They refuse to surrender their individual liberties under the rubric of "security," which means they oppose warrantless wiretaps and eavesdropping and any other encroachment of our freedoms.

Black Regiment preachers are not pantywaists. They are not controlled by church committees or boards. They preach the Word of God without fear or favor. They call a spade a spade. They cannot be bought or bullied.

I am happy to say that I have received nearly 500 responses to my initial appeal. However, I know that there are many hundreds more such men out there. I am confident that there are still "7000" who have not bowed the knee to Baal. I am asking readers to help me find them. I need their name, church name, city and state, and contact information.

I will be posting this information on a special "Black Regiment" web page, so people around the country who hunger to hear and worship with such a pastor will be able to locate him. I receive scores of emails and letters every week from people all over America begging me to recommend such a preacher to them. This list will help me do just that. Please help me.

I am aware that there are some who are hesitant to provide such information for fear that the "wrong people" will copy the list and target these men. I suppose that could happen. However, I ask such people to remember the sagacious words of Benjamin Franklin, who after the Declaration was signed, said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Do you really believe that by remaining anonymous you can remain free (and safe)? What will you do when all the rest of us are gone? Will you then find the courage to speak? When you are all alone (and right now you are NOT alone), will you then be willing to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence?

The time to speak out, the time to stand, the time to hold high the message of liberty is now. If we fall, let us fall fighting.

Once more, I ask readers to help me locate The Black Regiment. Remember, too, that a name without an address or contact information does not help me.

Please send your responses to chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

When our list is compiled, we will publish it on my web site, which is located at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

So, for all of you folks who are desperately seeking a Black Regiment-type preacher in your area: stay tuned.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/.