Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
CHUCK BALDWIN WINS CONSTITUTION PARTY NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT
Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief ( http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com )
World Affairs Brief, May 2, 2008


I was delighted to hear that Pastor Chuck Baldwin won the Constitution Party nomination for president over the very talented Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes is a good man. He ran against Barak Obama for the Senate race in Illinois, but his being part of the black minority didn't help him garner any endorsements from the establishment. He was TOO conservative and the media hates black conservatives. Keyes is a dynamic speaker with few peers, but (in my opinion) sometimes plays to the audience too much with catchy phrases designed mostly to drum up applause and trigger religious fervor-at the expense of more substantive discussions. These kinds of speeches play well to the conservative-Christian choir and provide political excitement, but ultimately narrows the candidates appeal by turning away those who aren't interested in organized religion or who are suspicious of a flamboyant preacher-type style.

In the brief of April 18th, I brought up the problem of the traditional political approach of the Constitutional Party being too narrowly focused on its core supporters--all ardent evangelical Christians. If the party is going to grow it needs to more closely emulate Ron Paul's approach by championing liberty for all without excessive religious rhetoric in speeches--which makes non religious conservatives uncomfortable about using the role of government to enforce religious values (where there is no violation of fundamental rights to life, liberty, property and family covenants).

Those who know my political writings know that I do support an elected officials' right to make reference to and appeal to God (even in prayer) as part of his service to the nation, but he should do so judiciously and sincerely since pushing God openly is a favored political ploy of the most ungodly politicians. Bill Clinton, for example, would use the name of God (in vain, of course) just to impress naive Christians. Then there is George Bush Jr., wily enough to verbally support being "Born Again" while maintaining his furtive allegiance to with the satanic power cult/club Skull and Bones.

I'll take an honest, straight-talking statesman like Ron Paul, who follows conscience in his daily walk with Christ, than one of the many charismatic televangelist preachers like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Billy Graham and others who compromise with the world in order to gained access to high level establishment leaders. The personal prestige that gained by such associations is illusory. The establishment despises religious leaders who seek their approval and fail to see they are being played the fool.

Chuck Baldwin is different than most other religious leaders: He pastors his flock with the whole truth, not just the part they want to hear. Baldwin has built up the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola Florida by preaching a lot of tough truths, including the proper principles of law and government and ably defending them against all challengers. He has not shrunk from attacking even the acts of conspiring men in high office, including presidents, congressmen and judges.

Baldwin's influence in not, however, limited to his church. He has long maintained an outreach to the world at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com, giving his unique brand of leadership and commentary to anyone on the web who will hear. I've long been a recipient of his email missives and can only recall one minor area of disagreement.

This is not mere begrudging acknowledgment. Baldwin is enjoyable to read. He always gets right to the point. You come away feeling satisfied when he comments on any subject. I've also had the privilege of hearing him speak. He is well spoken and his ideas are substantive. His demeanor is always interesting but never flamboyant. As with Ron Paul, you immediately sense this is a totally honest man, someone you can trust. I've never heard him trying to weasel around sensitive issues like politicians do in a question and answer session.

I don't think Baldwin comes to this task seeking personal glory. He has no burning personal ambitions like Mitt Romney that will cause him to compromise in order to gain favor with benefit-corrupted voters. For Baldwin it will be a very great personal sacrifice, done out of a passion for liberty and no small "fire of discontent" over what is happening to our country. Here are excerpts from Baldwins first statement on the important issues.

On War: "If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations.

Illegal Immigration: Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail. By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders. And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.

Abortion: If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion... And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

Foreign Policy: On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world's policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations. Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the "peace and credibility of the United Nations." (I lie not; that is what he said.) ... as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.'s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste. By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO... It is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America's jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. "Free trade" will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.

National Sovereignty: as President, I would take the preservation of our nation's sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.

Gun Rights: As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.

Veterans and MIAs: There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country's battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority. If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority.

Corporate subsidies and federal departments: On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments).

Energy: There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.

Taxes and Sound Money: Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into! I would also work to repeal the 'death tax,' inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.

"I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate. I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the 'evil of two lessers' being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!"

Ron Paul was right about this movement being larger than him. But we still need a champion at the head that is capable of inspiring confidence and expanding the movement. As Ron Paul goes back to Congress to continue the fight there, I believe Chuck Baldwin is the person to continue the fight during this election cycle and beyond. Remember, it isn't winning this one election that is crucial. We're building a movement, a remnant of principled believers that will be willing to stand as a wall against this ultimate battle against evil. That last stand will be more than a political maneuver. Chuck Baldwin has the full range of understanding and capabilities to move this movement forward and deserves your support. I would encourage all of you to begin the process of becoming acquainted with Baldwin so that you can inform you friends and neighbors. You can donate to Baldwin's non-political causes here http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php His official presidential campaign website (coming soon) will be http://www.baldwin2008.com In the meantime, people can write personal checks for campaign contributions to: Baldwin 2008, P.O. Box 131, Palmyra, New Jersey 08065

In contrast to the honesty and independence of a Baldwin campaign, a small story emerged from Judicial Watch that John McCain has accepted illegal foreign support and foreign financial contributions to his campaign--from the Rothchilds no less. "At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London's Spencer House, during McCain's swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their 'kind permission'... US political campaigns are forbidden from accepting contributions from foreign nationals." Don't expect him to be prosecuted for it.
 

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
A protest vote?
 

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
I won't be a part of the problem, not for one more minute! I also believe that every vote counts.
smiley1.gif


EDIT:
WTF am I talking about, I don't believe that every vote counts, but this guy speaks about liberty and sovereignty. Those concepts make me happy, so I'll pull the lever for Baldwin. Unless he dies or I find someone I like better. Edited by: C Darwin
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
Menelik said:
A protest vote?

Yes. I refuse to support the likes of Hillary, Obama, or McCain.

It will only be a protest vote as long as people think of it as a protest vote.

The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin will eventually came down. So will the two-party system.
 

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
White Shogun said:
Menelik said:
A protest vote?
The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin will eventually came down. So will the two-party system.

I have no facts to support this but I think the two party system gets its strength by being able to blame the other party when times go rough. Thats something that former communist countries could not do. The populace in the past were easily swayed. Maybe in this information age that way of operating is on its way out.
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
Its called "ping-pong" and its pure genius...if your objective is to keep government dominated by a small pool of deeply evil, thieving, murderous power-mad politicos who are all basically identical.



Menelik said:
White Shogun said:
Menelik said:
A protest vote?
The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin will eventually came down. So will the two-party system.

I have no facts to support this but I think the two party system gets its strength by being able to blame the other party when times go rough. Thats something that former communist countries could not do. The populace in the past were easily swayed. Maybe in this information age that way of operating is on its way out.
 

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
THREE PEAS IN A POD

By Chuck Baldwin
May 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

I realize that is extremely difficult for some people to think outside the box. The vast majority of people are prone to be followers, to "go with the flow," to follow the path of least resistance. This appears to be the nature of human nature.

Therefore, I think I understand the reasoning of many who are so reluctant to step outside the two major parties and vote for a third party candidate. I seem to recall that I, too, was just as hesitant (though not for nearly as long as some people) as they are.

We have all heard it before: He doesn't stand a chance; it's a wasted vote; we must work within the party to make it better, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Now, I will be the first to admit that the deck is stacked against an independent candidate succeeding at any political level. The two dominant parties do not like competition. And they have made it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for third parties to have a fighting chance to prevail. My brief experience in third parties convinces me that the old state parties of Eastern Europe had nothing on America's two major parties, when it comes to dominating and controlling elections.

The media, too, is a co-opted and controlled environment. They refuse to cover minor parties and then attempt to justify their manipulation by saying something along the lines of, "We won't let you participate until you reach 'X' percentage points." But, of course, their refusal to give an independent candidate any time to present his or her views directly contributes to the lack of percentage points.

I believe that any candidate who has obtained ballot access in enough states to theoretically obtain sufficient electoral votes to win the election (an arduous and expensive process all by itself) should automatically be included in any and all debates and should be given an equal opportunity to present his or her views to the public. Anything less than this is deliberate manipulation of the election. And that is exactly what the two major parties and their collaborators in the mainstream media are doing.

That aside, one would think that sooner or later the American people would wake up to what is happening right in front of their eyes. One would think that they would realize that no matter which party wins the White House or wins control of Congress, most things stay pretty much the same.

All this talk of "conservatism" or "liberalism" is--for the most part--nothing more than campaign rhetoric. It means absolutely nothing. No matter which party wins, the federal government continues to get bigger and more intrusive. American manufacturing jobs and industries continue to be outsourced overseas. Our military personnel continue to be used as the personal militia for the United Nations. Our borders remain open to illegal immigration. The creation of a North American Union marches forward. Construction for the NAFTA superhighway continues unabated. The tactics of the IRS get more and more egregious. Americans continue to work harder and longer for less return, while politicians and CEOs of multinational corporations get richer and more powerful.

It just does not matter one whit which major party "wins." The American people, freedom, limited government, and the U.S. Constitution lose! One would think that at some point the American people would say "That's enough" and stop drinking the Kool-Aid from these two major parties. And if there was ever a year when the time appears right for such a revolution, one would think this would be the year.

Look at the three leading candidates: they are three peas in a pod. There is no substantive difference between them. Neither Obama, Clinton, nor McCain have any desire to stop illegal immigration. On this issue, there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats. None. John McCain even voted to grant Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. He joined with Senator Ted Kennedy to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.

Take the war in Iraq. The only candidate among the top three who even hints at bringing our troops home is Obama. And if anyone believes that he is serious about it, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Neither of the two major parties has any interest in bringing our troops home. No matter which party wins the White House, our troops will continue to be used for U.N. missions all over the world. We will continue to stick our nose wherever it does not belong. We will continue our utopian plans of nation-building, empire-building and international meddling.

No matter which of the two major parties captures the White House, the C.F.R. will dominate the President's cabinet appointees. Good grief! John McCain, himself, is a member of the C.F.R. Even in the area of federal judges, John McCain was one of the original "Gang of 14" Republicans who joined liberal Democrats in opposing the selection of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Anyone who believes that McCain will appoint someone such as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia is living in a fantasy world.

Regarding the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America rates John McCain with an F-. It doesn't get any worse than that, folks. On gun issues, John McCain is not the "lesser of two evils." Not in any manner, shape, or form.

Just recently, McCain committed himself to supporting the U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty. As with so many of McCain's policies, this one is right out of the Democratic playbook.

Regarding the loss of America's sovereignty and the merger of the U.S. into a regional or hemispheric government entity, noted columnist Cliff Kincaid writes, "McCain's strange rhetoric about 'North, Central, and South American life' reflects a view that nation-states are disappearing and being replaced by regional alliances and institutions. He referred to 'the powerful collective voice of the European Union,' as if the U.S. response would have to be submersion of our voice in a larger hemispheric entity. But McCain seems to be calling for something beyond even a North American Union (NAU) of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. He talked about 'creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish,' as if they would be built on top of the EU and the NAU.

"Earlier, McCain had declared, 'With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny.' But why should trade with America's neighbors necessarily lead to a 'common destiny?' This implies a political merger of the U.S. with other countries."

Does that sound like John McCain is the "lesser of two evils" to you? Have you heard Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama talk like this? Again, in regard to the loss of America's sovereignty and independence, there is no "lesser of two evils" between the major parties.

Can conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists really go to the polls this November and vote for someone such as John McCain? Do they really not see what John McCain would do to this country? Do they really believe that Clinton or Obama would be any worse? If they do, they are living in a fantasy world.

Take the issue of abortion. John McCain has made a career out of opposing pro-life candidates and causes. Just recently, Jill Stanek wrote a revealing column regarding the duplicity of John McCain's position on the life issue.

McCain has steadfastly opposed the Republican Party's pro-life plank. He has even stated his opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade. He said, "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade . . . ."

How long will conservatives, Christians, and lovers of liberty continue to blindly follow these two parties? Can they not see that our constitutional republic and our liberty is hanging by a thread? Do they not realize that Democrats and Republicans alike are willful participants in the destruction of our way of life?

Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Get your heads out of the sand! Our country is imploding and we keep electing and re-electing the same scoundrels who are culpable. The media provides them cover. Many of our pastors and Christian leaders provide them cover as well. But it is the people of this country--you and me--who have the power to actually do something about it.

How about this year--just this once--let's think for ourselves? Let's vote our principles. Let's forget what the pundits and experts say. Let's quit allowing the radio and TV talking heads to tell us who to vote for. And let's not be afraid to vote outside the two major parties. No, check that. Let's make a commitment to vote outside the two major parties.

The two major parties have had 150 years to improve our country, to make our country a better place in which to live. What have they done with all this power and opportunity? They have brought us to the edge of destruction.

I believe it was Albert Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Americans have been electing Republicans and Democrats over and over again, and we have been getting the same result. Let's try something different this year. What do you say?
 

Solomon Kane

Mentor
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
783
He seems like a good man, i'll probably vote for him or Barr.

I agree we cannot support either of the two party candidates. The two-party-game can collapse if we refuse to play it.

I disagree though about keyes--he's the official black neo-con and an insufferable loudmouth.
 

Realgeorge

Mentor
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
675
Howdy C. Darwin! Excellent posts. You write good stuff.

It would be nice to see the Constitution Party, and the America First Party, turn out some real candidates. Maybe the 2012 Election will provide opportunity. I'm not worried about America even having a 2016 election.

Bob Barr, Charles Baldwin, Ron Paul all would make fine leaders of an oppostion party. Sorry, but wouldn't give you three bent nickels for Alan Keyes. He is indeed a neocon in disguise, and a White-hater, very quietly, under the surface.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
Realgeorge said:
Howdy C. Darwin! Excellent posts. You write good stuff.

C. Darwin is indeed an excellent writer, but his posts in this thread are actual articles from other writers that have been copied and pasted into the thread. No harm in that of course, he isn't even claiming they're his articles. You can see the name of the author under the headline of each post.
 

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
^^^ I believe the blacks call this playa hatin!! ^^^

smiley36.gif
j/k
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
I love Dr.Baldwin's great articles and see eye to eye with him on most items. I'll most likely caste my ballot for him (yes, a protest vote against the 3 puppets of the Elite...being pitched to the sheeple as a "choice").
 

C Darwin

Mentor
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,181
Location
New York
I Am An American!</font>

July 18, 2008, By Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080718. html

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

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

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

Sadly, we no longer have the will to resist servitude. Our pulpits are too busy preaching a prosperity gospel; newsmen are in bed with the forces they once disdained; statesmen have been replaced with opportunistic, self-serving politicians; and merchants know no god but money. Hence, it is left to a small--and I mean very small--remnant to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence. Unfortunately, few seem to be listening to their cries.

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

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

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

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

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

Without the intellectual understanding of the principles of freedom and the moral resolve to maintain those principles, however, guns, by themselves, will only protect us for so long. In the end, our strength and protection come from God, and not too many people these days seem to be interested in His opinion.

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

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

And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Chuck Baldwin: Breakup of U.S. is Inevitable

BREAKUP OF U.S. IS INEVITABLE

By Chuck Baldwin
May 19, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
People all over America are discussing freedom's future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession. In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union. Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.
Even many of those who oppose the prospect of secession understand the increasing tyrannical nature of the current central government in Washington, D.C., and that something must be done about it.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines tyranny as "1: oppressive power . . . 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler . . . 3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force . . . 4: a tyrannical act."
Even a casual observer would have to conclude that most of the actions proceeding forth from DC today match at least Webster's 1st and 3rd definitions of tyranny. Besides, who would argue the advantage of the tyranny of an oligarchy over the tyranny of a monarchy? A tyranny of many cannot be distinguished from a tyranny of one in most cases--especially not by those poor souls who are at the point of the spear of Government's cruelties.
The fact is, there is collusion between Big Government and Big Business (as each feeds and profits off the other) to strip the American people of their God-given liberties. Without a shadow of a doubt, had America's Founding Fathers not sagaciously cemented the Second Amendment into the US Constitution, the Jackboots would have marched over us years ago.
That freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration--and even fury--is quite understandable. And State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty. All of America's founders understood this--all of them! And millions of modern-day American patriots are just now beginning to become reacquainted with this great, historic doctrine.
However, whether one subscribes to the doctrine of secession or not is quite immaterial. The breakup of the US is inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it. And given the spiritual deadness of most American churches these days, the prospect of a modern-day national revival seems remote at best.
It is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire. For the sake of simplicity, I ask readers to ponder this question: How can one sustain a global economy without global government to manage and control it? Answer: One can't.
This is why elitists in politics, economics, and the military have been calling for global government for decades. People such as George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Gideon Rachman, Warren Christopher, Walt Rostow, Richard Gardner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Pastor, et al. Furthermore, organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are constantly promoting regional or global unification. Moreover, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, of course, the United Nations (UN) all contribute to the escalation of globalism.
I have written two previous columns outlining much relevant information on this very real promotion of globalism. See them here and here.
Therefore, it is safe to say that, for the most part, America's foreign policy is (and has been) controlled and manipulated by globalists. Accordingly, America's armed forces are used more and more as international policemen to patrol the streets of the world on behalf of this international cabal of merchants and politicians. The cover for this is the mantra of fighting an international "war on terrorism." But the real agenda is, keeping our troops fighting in perpetual war so that they might be available to the globalists at the UN and US State Department (not to mention countless "off the books" operations being run by the CIA and a host of other agencies) for the purpose of maintaining the "global economy" (and only God knows how many illegal enterprises).
Perpetual war also allows the Machiavellians who desire to turn America into a police state to increasingly encroach upon constitutionally protected liberties by keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear. After all, as long as our troops are "over there" fighting (and making) enemies, we will always need Big Brother to keep us safe "over here." And the only way he can do that is by putting us all in cages; but hey, it's for our own good, right?

And, of course, this new "global force for good" must itself be reshaped into an image compatible with the political correctness of the New World Order. Hence, more and more women are being placed in combat units. In fact, females are now the fastest growing group of enlistees within the US armed forces. And for the first time in US history, women are now approved to serve aboard submarines. (I am sure submariners' wives are thrilled about this!)
"How does flooding the US military with women fit into the scheme of the globalists?" you ask. Simple. By reducing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of our military forces, it requires them to be part of a "coalition" force. Come on, folks, figure it out: our troops are always part of some sort of global "coalition" army. They always serve in concert with NATO, or the UN, or at the behest of some other global entity.
And please, I don't need readers to write me with great indignation, calling me "sexist." Get real! If women can serve in combat equally with men, why not have an all-female combat infantry division? How about an all-female tank division? Let's have an all-female Navy warship! What about an all-female Navy SEAL team or Army Special Forces team? If, then, women are inefficient in combat as a unit, they are equally inefficient in combat individually. Wise up, people! It is critical to the globalists controlling Washington politics that our military be integrated with foreign entities. Allowing the weaker vessels to dilute the warrior-strength of our combat units helps to accomplish this in spades!
Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse under its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.
In its attempt to entice illegal aliens (a necessary component to the globalization of America) by providing them with almost complete and universal welfare benefits, the Empire has saddled the states with a monstrous debt and has planted the seeds for its own fragmentation.
The American Southwest is a boiling caldron. Revolutionaries, violent criminal gangs, agitators, drug runners, human traffickers, and agent provocateurs--all loyal to Mexico--have been allowed to freely unleash their anti-American vitriol to the point that, in desperation, the State of Arizona is now trying to fight back. It is probably too little too late, however. Both the central government in Washington, D.C., and the national news media are sympathetic to the cause of La Raza. Look at how those brave legislators and governor in Arizona have been lampooned by the national press corps.
The call for the "reconquista" of America's great Southwest will continue to escalate. It is all part of the globalists' plan to regionalize the United States. The template is already in place. CFR's Robert Pastor has already done the legwork. The North American Community (or Union) is past the drawing table stage; it is now being implemented. The NAFTA superhighway is being built and La Raza has been unleashed on the frontier. It's only a matter of time.
Furthermore, take a look at the staggering debt that this government in Washington, D.C., has burdened the American people with. To talk numbers is meaningless: they total more than we can possibly begin to fathom. These numbers shock sensibilities and strain comprehension. In this regard, toss away all notions of partisan politics. Both major parties in DC have forever plunged our children and grandchildren's future into a chasm of indebtedness so deep that it can never be recovered. Never!
Yet again, perpetual war has accomplished its purpose: unmitigated debt has allowed international bankers to print and loan vast sums of paper money that can be used to further their dreams of a global economy, complete with a mutually palatable system of burgeoning global governance.
I say again, the American empire is not sustainable; the breakup of the United States is inevitable. It is only a matter of time. The real question is not IF the US will breakup, but WHEN and HOW?
Globalists are already planning America's breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture. So, all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the "unconstitutionality" and "impracticality" of secession can do so to their hearts' content. It changes nothing. The breakup is coming.
What is yet to be seen, of course, is if there will be enough states (the last vanguards of liberty) with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, and muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom. Call it what you will; debate the definitions and language all you like; it all comes down to the same thing: either men fight for freedom and independence or they allow themselves and their children to be sold into slavery. At some point in the future (how far in the future, no one knows), we Americans will, once again, have to face that decision.



In the meantime, keep talking about freedom around your coffee tables; keep writing about freedom in your books and columns; keep praying about freedom in your churches and closets; keep dreaming about freedom in your hearts and minds. Real freedom--where a man can be left alone; where a man can keep what he earns; where a man can make his own choices; where a man's property is his own; where harassing agents of an oppressive central government are nowhere to be found; where a man doesn't have to sell his soul in order to sell his wares; where a man's worship of God is not subject to political correctness (or the IRS); and where a man can actually exchange commerce and correspondence without the prying eyes of Big Brother--is worth any price. ANY PRICE!
As Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Amen! And if the pursuit of freedom requires the extremism of secession, I say, LET IT COME!
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Great article by Dr. Baldwin! Thanks for posting it Jimmy.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Americans will support succession as long as it's not during Super Bowl week, or the World Series, or the final of American Idol.

I don't see ANY enthusiasm for succession except only amongst the most aware of people. Chuck needs to stop getting his feedback from his choir and realize that sheeple america is not on board.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Right on the mark JaxVid. It's been (well) said that the Elite/PTB/NWO doesn't care about the 5-15% who know/understand their agenda & (many) puppets, but only for controlling the 85-95% of the population (who're deceived lemmings).
 
Top