Gender: Male
Status: Married
Age: 57
Sign: Taurus
City: PENSACOLA
State: Florida
Country: US
Signup Date: 5/1/2008
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
|
U.S. To Break Up Soon?by Chuck Baldwin, September 29, 2009According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, "'Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,' he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs--and everyone will get their piece. 'The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,' said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow's Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs." MRT went on to report, "Panarin came up with his grim forecast while analyzing the parallels between the Soviet Union in its final days and the current situation in the United States. 'American dream ballooned seven times in 11 years. During Gorbachev era, the Soviet dream ballooned five times.' Americans hope [President] Barack Obama 'can work miracles,' he wrote. 'But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.'" The Drudge Report confirmed the MRT report and added, "Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA . . . 'The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.'" At least some of what Panarin said back in the fall of 2008 either has taken place or is in the process of taking place. Drudge reported, "When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: 'It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.'" Drudge continued reporting Panarin as saying that "the U.S. will break up into six parts-- the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong." Panarin further suggested that Russia might even "claim Alaska." Reporting on the same story, The Wall Street Journal said, "Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russian relations." The WSJ goes on to say that Panarin believes that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar." This is not the first time that Comrade Panarin has made such a prediction. Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily, noted in December of 2008 that Panarin has been making similar projections for the past ten years. In a column regarding Panarin's predictions, Farah wrote, "Until recently, no one took him very seriously. And then came the economic calamity that has rocked Americans and the rest of the world, too. Now, Panarin's predictions of an end of the United States, due to economic and moral collapse, is being taken seriously by many." So, will the United States break up in 2010? Or 2011? Or 2012? Or anytime in the near future, for that matter? If history is any teacher, the chances would seem good that Panarin's predictions may be closer to reality than anyone would like to admit. A historian and linguist from South Africa recently wrote me a fascinating letter, in which he chronicled the major world empires of history, dating the time of their rise and fall. Here is what his calculations look like: Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.
My honorable historian-friend calculates America's reign using its post-Revolutionary War years. He notes that America's reign is currently at 219 years. He further notes that the average duration of every world superpower listed above is a little over 238 years. One does not need to be a master mathematician or possess a Ph.D. to realize that America is fast approaching the mark in which every major world power in history has either collapsed or, at a minimum, lost its world leadership and power. My friend also reminded me of his homeland's (South Africa's) demise. He told me that he noticed the handwriting on the wall in time to relocate his family to a more peaceful and stable European country. Many of his friends and countrymen were not so fortunate, however, and thousands were killed and their properties confiscated. He then warned me, "The period of Grace is closing, in what is your homeland." In addition, serious students of Holy Writ are also struck with the similarities between societal conditions in America and those of Old Testament Israel (as well as with Gentile nations) at those times of divine judgment and retribution. As someone trenchantly said, "If God spares the United States, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." Will the Russian analyst's prophecies come true in 2010? Probably not. Does that mean that America is impervious to some sort of national demise? Not at all. Is America already in serious trouble? You bet. Could there be some sort of break-up within the United States in the near future? In my opinion, that is a very realistic probability. If this happens, will freedom suffer? Almost certainly. Will those with tyrannical tendencies use the opportunity of any national disaster to try and enslave us? They already do. I personally do not believe that there is any "If" to the question. The only questions are, "When?" and "To what degree?" And, of course, there is another question: "When the break-up comes, how many Americans understand the principles of liberty enough, and are personally prepared enough, and are willing enough to resist whatever power it may be that seeks to place us under the thumb of oppression and fight for the same protections and vanguards of liberty that first established this land?" Obviously, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, isn't it? *If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: © Chuck Baldwin
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, September 05, 2009
|
Category: Religion and Philosophy
|
Written by Chuck Baldwin
|
Friday, 04 September 2009 02:41 |
 Most
Americans today would probably still recognize the stirring words from
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”: “By the rude bridge that arched
the flood,/ Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,/ Here once the
embattled farmers stood,/ And fired the shot heard round the world.”
Most of us are still aware that those embattled farmers won for us the
freedoms we too often take for granted today. But how many of us are aware of the extent to which faith motivated
those farmers to leave their families and homes and risk their lives
for a cause that most would have considered hopeless at the time? How
many are aware of the extent to which preachers actively participated
in our War for Independence — and not just rhetorically from the
pulpit, though the great sermons on behalf of the freedom fight
provoked many parishioners to action? How many are familiar with the
phrase “Black Regiment”?
That phrase encapsulates what Colonial America possessed in its War for Independence that is sadly lacking today.
The Black Regiment is a moniker that was given to the patriot-preachers
of Colonial America. They were called the “Black Regiment” owing to the
fact that so many of them had a propensity to wear long, black robes in
the pulpit.
According to historian/educator Reverend Wayne Sedlak, in his article
“The Black Regiment Led the Fight in Our War for Independence”:
It was British sympathizer Peter Oliver,
who actually first used the name “Black Regiment.” He complained that
such clergymen were invariably at the heart of the revolutionary
disturbances. He tied their influence to such colonial leaders as
Samuel Adams, James Otis and others of prominence in the cause. He
quotes colonial leadership in its quest to gain the voice of the
clergy. In one instance, he disparagingly cites a public plea of James
Otis who sought the help of the clergy in a particular manner:
“Mr. Otis, understanding the Foibles of human Nature advanced one
shrewd position which seldom fails to promote popular Commotions, that
‘it was necessary to secure the black Regiment.’ These were his Words
and his meaning was to engage ye dissenting Clergy on his Side....
Where better could he fly for aid than to the Horns of the Altar?...
This order of Men … like their Predecessors of 1641 … have been
unceasingly sounding the Yell of Rebellion in the Ears of an ignorant
and deluded People.”
So influential were the patriot-pulpits of Colonial America that it
was said by Prime Minister Horace Walpole in the British Parliament,
“Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” In fact,
America’s War for Independence was often referenced in Parliament as
“the Presbyterian Revolt.” And during the Revolutionary War, British
troops often made colonial churches military targets. Churches were
torched, ransacked, and pillaged.
Legendary Exploits
These patriot-preachers were staunchly patriotic, seriously
independent, and steadfastly courageous. They were found in almost all
of the various Protestant denominations at the time: Baptist,
Presbyterian, Congregational, Anglican, Lutheran, German Reformed, etc.
Their Sunday sermons — more than Patrick Henry’s oratory, Sam Adams’
and James Warren’s “Committees of Correspondence,” or Thomas Paine’s
“Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots” — inspired, educated, and
motivated the colonists to resist the tyranny of the British Crown, and
fight for their freedom and independence. Without the Black Regiment,
there is absolutely no doubt that we would still be a Crown colony,
with no Declaration of Independence, no U.S. Constitution, no Bill of
Rights, and little liberty.
The exploits of the Black Regiment are legendary. When General George
Washington asked Lutheran pastor John Peter Muhlenberg to raise a
regiment of volunteers, Muhlenberg gladly agreed. Before marching off
to join Washington’s army, he delivered a powerful sermon from
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 that concluded with these words: “The Bible tells us
there is a time for all things and there is a time to preach and a time
to pray, but the time for me to preach has passed away, and there is a
time to fight, and that time has come now. Now is the time to fight!
Call for recruits! Sound the drums!”
Then Muhlenberg took off his clerical robe to reveal the uniform of a
Virginia colonel. Grabbing his musket from behind the pulpit, he donned
his colonel’s hat and marched off to war. And as he did, more than 300
of his male congregants followed him.
Muhlenberg’s brother quotes John Peter as saying, “You may say that as
a clergyman nothing can excuse my conduct. I am a clergyman, it is
true, but I am a member of society as well as the poorest layman, and
my liberty is as dear to me as any man. I am called by my country to
its defense. The cause is just and noble. Were I a Bishop … I should
obey without hesitation; and as far am I from thinking that I am wrong,
I am convinced it is my duty so to do — a duty I owe to my God and my
Country.”
Remember, too, it was Pastor Jonas Clark and his congregants at the
Church of Lexington who comprised that initial body of brave colonists
called Minutemen. These were the men, you will recall, who withstood
British troops advancing on Concord to confiscate the colonists’
firearms and arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and fired “the shot
heard round the world.”
The “Supreme Knight” and great martyr of Presbyterianism was Pastor
James Caldwell of the Presbyterian church of Elizabethtown (present-day
Elizabeth), New Jersey. He was called the “Rebel High Priest” and the
“Fighting Chaplain.” He is most famous for the story “Give ’em Watts!”
It is said that at the Springfield engagement, when the militia ran out
of wadding for their muskets, Parson Caldwell galloped to the
Presbyterian church and returned with an armload of hymnbooks, threw
them to the ground, and exclaimed, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts! Give ’em
Watts!” — a reference to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts.
 Not
an easy path: Presbyterian minister James Caldwell, who gained fame
during the battle of Springfield, New Jersey, when he gathered Watts
hymnals from a church for use as rifle wadding and shouted to the
troops as he handed them out, “put Watts into them,” was killed in the
war, as was his wife.
Then there was the Baptist, Joab Houghton, of New Jersey. Houghton was
in the Hopewell Baptist Meeting-house at worship when he received the
first information of Concord and Lexington, and of the retreat of the
British to Boston with heavy losses. His great-grandson gave the
following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:
Stilling the breathless messenger, he
sat quietly through the services, and when they were ended, he passed
out, and mounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house,
he beckoned to the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear,
curious to know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day
could mean. At the first words a silence, stern as death, fell over
all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a
terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder
at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard
upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the
Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston. Then pausing, and
looking over the silent throng, he said slowly: “Men of New Jersey, the
red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to
Boston?” And every man of that audience stepped out into line, and
answered, “I!” There was not a coward nor a traitor in old Hopewell
Baptist Meeting-house that day. [Source: Cathcart, The Baptists and the American Revolution, 1876]
Consider, too, Pastor M’Clanahan, of Culpepper County, Virginia, who
raised a military company of Baptists and served in the field, both as
a captain and chaplain. Reverend David Barrow “shouldered his musket
and showed how fields were won.” Another Baptist, General Scriven, when
ordered by a British officer to give up Sunbury, near Savannah, sent
back the answer, “Come and get it.” Deacon Mills, of the First Baptist
Church of Philadelphia, “commanded skillfully” 1,000 riflemen at the
Battle of Long Island, and for his valor was made a brigadier general.
Deacon Loxley of the same church commanded the artillery at the Battle
of Germantown with the rank of colonel. (Source: McDaniel, The People Called Baptists, 1925)
A list drawn up by Judge Curwen, an ardent Tory, contained 926 names of
British sympathizers living in America — colonial law had already
exiled a larger number — but there was “not the name of one Baptist on
the list.” Maybe this is why President George Washington, in his letter
to the Baptists, paid the following tribute: “I recollect with
satisfaction that the religious society of which you are members has
been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm
friend to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious
Revolution.” Maybe it explains why Thomas Jefferson could write to a
Baptist church, saying, “We have acted together from the origin to the
end of a memorable Revolution.” (Source: Ibid.)
Faith and Conviction
These were not the acts of wild-eyed fanatics; they were the acts of
men of deep and abiding faith and conviction. Their understanding of
the principles of both Natural and Revealed Law was so proficient, so
thorough, and so sagacious that their conscience would let them do
nothing else. Hear the wise counsel of the notable colonial preacher
Reverend Samuel West (1730-1807):
Our obligation to promote the public
good extends as much to the opposing every exertion of arbitrary power
that is injurious to the state as it does to the submitting to good and
wholesome laws. No man, therefore, can be a good member of the
community that is not as zealous to oppose tyranny, as he is ready to
obey magistracy.
Reverend West went on to say:
If magistrates are ministers of God only
because the law of God and reason points out the necessity of such an
institution for the good of mankind, it follows, that whenever they
pursue measures directly destructive of the public good, they cease
being God’s ministers, they forfeit their right to obedience from the
subject, they become the pests of society, and the community is under
the strongest obligation of duty both to God and to its own members, to
resist and oppose them, which will be so far from resisting the
ordinance of God that it will be strictly obeying his commands.
This was the spirit of 1776; this was the preaching that built a
free and independent nation; this is what Colonial America had that, by
and large, America does not have today.
 Moral
underpinnings: Baptist minister David Barrow gave his whole being to
causes he joined. He was nearly drowned by vigilantes for preaching as
a Baptist in areas dominated by the Church of England, and he took up a
gun to fight in the Revolutionary War.
Membership in the Black Regiment was unofficial and without human
oversight. Preachers of the black robes were young and old, loud and
soft-spoken, rough and gentle, urban and rural. They differed on
secondary doctrines and never surrendered their theological
distinctives. Yet they formed an irresistible and indefatigable army
that neither King George nor the demons of hell could stop.
As one reads the colonial history of the United States, one must be
struck with the observation that the American people, on the whole,
seemed to appreciate the courage and independence of their preachers.
Even America’s early political leaders shared in this appreciation.
For instance, John Adams once remarked,
It is the duty of the clergy to
accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins
as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted.
For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominant, ought
they not to warn their hearers against those vices? If public spirit is
much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue? If the rights
and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should
they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and
restrictions, how muchsoever it may move the gall of Massachusetts?
The problem today is that America’s preachers have taken off the
black robes and put on yellow ones. Where is the preaching against
prevalent sins? Where is the spiritual, scriptural explanation
concerning the rights and duties, or limitations and restrictions of
civil magistrates from America’s pulpits today?
The famed 19th-century revivalist Charles G. Finney had some trenchant words on this subject. He said,
If there is a decay of conscience, the
pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral
discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is
degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world
loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If
Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for
it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our
government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.
Black Regiment Today
Yes, indeed. It was the patriot-pulpit that delivered America from
bondage; and it is the timid pulpit, on the part of those who do or
should know, that is helping to deliver America to the brink of
destruction and judgment.
It is for this reason that I took on the task of resurrecting the Black
Regiment. In July of 2007, I put out my first appeal to help locate a
modern-day Black Regiment. (And my appeal echoes other great
Americans’, such as Professor David Alan Black and Rev. Wayne Sedlak,
who called for a resurrection of the Black Regiment even before I did.)
I asked readers to help me locate brave and courageous patriot-pastors
in the similitude of the Black Regiment of old. The result of this
appeal has been truly exciting.
On my Black Regiment website
(www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php), we now have over 200
pastors and evangelists who have signed up to be included in a
modern-day Black Regiment. This was done primarily so that people
around the country who hunger to attend a church that has a
patriot-pastor in the pulpit can find a place of worship. I extend the
invitation to readers of this column to further assist me in locating
such patriot-preachers.
I am personally convinced that the only thing necessary for God to send
another Great Awakening — along with the accompanying reclamation of
liberty and independence — is for God’s men in the pulpits to return to
their heritage by becoming the champions of freedom: sounding forth the
clarion call to resist tyranny and defend liberty, as did our forebears
in the Black Regiment.
Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor. He was the Constitution Party's nominee for president in 2008. |
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
|
Marbury v. Madison Mantraby Chuck Baldwin's Son, Timothy Baldwin September 1, 2009 [Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America's foremost defenders of State sovereignty.] The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they are as philosophical in nature as the Declaration of Independence. One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Before getting into the misunderstandings and misapplications of that infamous decision, we must first recognize the source and character of Marshall's opinion. As Marshall himself admitted that the US is to be a country of "laws, not men," we must establish that Marshall's opinion does not equate to the "supreme law of the land" which the states and individuals are bound to obey. If our submission only requires that the US S CT speak, then we do not live as freemen, but as slaves. Marshall was an ardent member of the Federalist Party (a pro-centralist party) and served as the Secretary of State in the pro-centralist administration of President John Adams, who appointed Marshall to the US S CT in 1801 at the "midnight" hour before Thomas Jefferson was sworn into office as President of the US. Marshall's nationalist opinions were no secret either. Marshall believed that the US Constitution and Union were formed by the aggregate whole of the American people, and not by a compact of the states; that the Union formed "one nation, indivisible" and not a confederation of states; that State sovereignty as expressed in the Tenth Amendment equated more to a general idea than to any real applicable and relevant State power over the federal government; that the Constitution must be liberally interpreted for the sake of expanding federal powers at the expense of State sovereignty; and that the idea of State sovereignty was literally ridiculous. By the way, even most self-called conservatives today probably subscribe to these political beliefs, not even knowing the real historical facts behind such fallacious ideology. Concerning Marshall's philosophical belief relative to the formation of the USA, this historical fact must be admitted. It is crucially important for our discussion today in America. Historian and politically-motivated author, Edward Samuel Corwin, said of Marshall in his book, "John Marshall and the Constitution" (New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1920), p. 34: "[Marshall's] attitude [to strengthen the national power and to curtail State legislative power] was determined not only by his sympathy for the sufferings of his former comrades in arms and by his veneration for his father and for Washington . . . but also by his military experience, which had RENDERED THE PRETENSIONS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RIDICULOUS IN HIS EYES." (Emphasis added.) There is no question that Marshall had a pre-destined belief against State sovereignty in favor of national power. Corwin describes Marshall's political belief regarding the US as a "nationalistic creed." So, is the nationalistic political persuasion of one man (appointed by a nationalistic President) and one court to form the basis of the true understanding of the nature and character of the USA? After all, Marshall admitted that the US is established by the rule of law, and not the rule of men. So, by Marshall's own definition in Marbury v. Madison, a US S CT opinion does not establish law, but rather should reflect what the paramount law already is: "The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, "Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!" I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway. Since 1803, the nationalists have pointed to Marshall's declaration to conclusively say the states have no power over the opinion of the US S CT, for as Marshall states: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." From this, most American lawyers and law students come to the conclusion that there is no authority above and beyond the US S CT's interpretation of the US Constitution. Whatever the US S CT rules becomes "settled law" and the states are completely bound--of course, unless the US S CT says something different later. I was taught this in law school and every other ABA-accredited law school in America teaches this. But a true legal study of Marbury v. Madison reveals that Marshall's opinion (which was actually dicta) never addressed the issue of State sovereignty whatsoever. American historian, Forrest McDonald, reveals this fact in his book, "State's Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876." McDonald states, "Marshall was careful not to claim that the Supreme Court was the SOLE or FINAL ARBITER of acts of Congress." (Emphasis added.) Ibid., (Lawrence, KS, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2000), p. 56. This is, in fact, the case. Perhaps most telling about Marshall's silence on the issue of being the sole or final arbiter is the fact that just a few years prior to his decision, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, had advocated the State's ability to actively nullify and resist unconstitutional actions from the federal government. Since Marshall's opinion was mostly dicta anyway--meaning it had no relevance to the issue at hand--why not go ahead and state that the US S CT is the ONLY final arbiter of the US Constitution? But Marshall never did, and neither has any US S CT decision since Marbury v. Madison. Thus, when someone suggests that the states possess the sovereign power to arrest federal encroachments outside of constitutionally enumerated powers, the nationalists emphatically argue their unsupported conclusion that the USA is one nation, indivisible, where the US S CT possesses the sole authority as the final arbiter on all matters politically relative to the US Constitution, and to suggest otherwise is treason!--even when the most authoritative sources have been so pointedly laid out to the contrary. Marshall's opinions have not settled this matter, and the USA must come to grips with who we are, what we are and how we are. What's more, Marshall's opinions of national expansion were conclusively derived from one main principle: that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people and not by individual states through a compact. This fact was admitted by Marshall-lover, Corwin, in 1920. Corwin clearly expresses this point as follows: "The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of the Constitution from the side of national power . . . were the following: '(1) THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT A COMPACT OF THE STATES. (2) Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty. (3) The Constitution was further designed . . . to be kept a commodious vehicle of the nation life . . . . (4) [The national government] is a sovereign government, both in its choice of the means by which to exercise its power and in its supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers. (5) The powers of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has not acted. (6) The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme authority of the people of the United States.' Of these several principles, THE FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TO A GREAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF THE OTHERS." "John Marshall and the Constitution," pp. 144-145. (Emphasis added.) Corwin admits that all of Marshall's opinions were based upon the presumption that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people as one body politic, and not by the individual, sovereign states via a compact. From this premise comes the vast expansion of federal power under the guise of constitutionality. Thus, if it were to be contrarily presumed that the USA is in fact a compact acceded to by the states, then the rules of interpretation that Marshall and subsequent US S CT justices used were wrong and require a different outcome. This fact cannot be overstated and is the source of all of the federal tyranny that many of you reading this article complain about. Thus, it behooves Americans to truly know WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR UNION: is it a National government formed by the whole people, or is it a compact among the states and acceded to by the states (otherwise known as a Confederacy)? This article does not allow me to expound upon this subject in great depth, but it should be sufficient at this point at least to call into question Marshall's presupposition regarding the nature and character of the USA by referring to some of the most authoritative sources on the subject during the formation of the US Constitution. Let us start with James Madison, who was one of the Federalist Paper authors and considered to be the Father of the US Constitution. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison examines the nature and character of the formation of the Union under the US Constitution. He admits that the US was formed by a federative (league of states) and NOT a national act. Madison proclaims: "[T]he Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING ONE ENTIRE NATION, BUT AS COMPOSING THE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT STATES TO WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY BELONG. It is to be the ASSENT AND RATIFICATION of the SEVERAL STATES . . . The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act. "That it will be a federal and NOT A NATIONAL ACT . . . THE ACT OF THE PEOPLE, AS FORMING SO MANY INDEPENDENT STATES, NOT AS FORMING ONE AGGREGATE NATION, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SEVERAL STATES that are parties to it . . . [T]he new Constitution will . . . be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." (Emphasis added.) Madison pens in the clearest of terms that the US Constitution is a compact assented to by the State sovereigns in their legal capacities as individual bodies politic, and NOT as one mass of people, forming one body politic. If this were not enough to at least raise a serious question as to what has been shoved down our throats for 150 years, consider that even Alexander Hamilton confirms that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, and NOT a national act of the whole people. He says in Federalist Paper 85: "To its complete establishment throughout the Union, [the US Constitution] will therefore REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF THIRTEEN STATES . . . [T]he necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the COMPACT . . . WE MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO ERECT BARRIERS AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY." (Emphasis added.) Just in these two short excerpts from Founding Fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, we see that Marshall's premise that the USA is a nation formed by the whole of the people and not by the compact of the states is seriously called into question, which, of course, calls into question all of the principles of constitutional interpretation and resulting conclusions which derive from that false premise. An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, "questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT." (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign--the people--and NOT to the United States Supreme Court. *If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: © Chuck Baldwin
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 28, 2009
|
  More On Internment Camps
by Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column athttp://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.htmlI felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it athttp://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/04/16/news/news1.txtPredictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé" published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report athttp://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4312850.htmlCriticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best."We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis added.)(To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites:http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Planhttp://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments athttp://...com/pandemic-martial-lawAnd last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story athttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTLIn addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations"? See the report athttp://...com/cong-to-auth-fema-campsIs all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late" to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/11/p27662http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+campshttp://...com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."(See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.' They DO exist."Flynn replied, "They do."(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.America's founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms--even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you've lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php© Chuck BaldwinThis column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090828.html |
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
|
Has The Church Become Irrelevant?
by Chuck Baldwin
August 25, 2009
America's Christian heritage is both rich and deep. What most historians and educators refuse to acknowledge, our forebears understood clearly: it was mostly Christians and churches that formed and shaped the new land that became known as the United States of America.For example, when discussing the brave exploits of the passengers on board the Mayflower, people seem to have forgotten that the voyage was mostly the endeavor of a single church congregation. And don't forget that it was Pastor Jonas Clark's male congregants who withstood British troops at Lexington and fired the very first of the shots heard 'round the world. The famous French historian, Alexis De Tocqueville, credited the pulpits and churches of Colonial America with inspiring America's successful War for Independence and subsequent prosperity much more than its institutions of learning, halls of Congress, or industries of invention. From the very beginning, America's Christians and pastors were intricately involved in the establishment and building of this republic.It is no hyperbole to say that without the influence, sacrifice, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears of America's early Christians, this country would not exist.But what do we see today? We see pastors and church congregations who are, for the most part, totally ignorant of their own heritage and history. They have little or no understanding of the principles of Natural Law--something America's founders knew almost by second nature (no pun intended). They seem to know next to nothing of the Biblical principles of liberty and government. All they seem to be able to do is regurgitate some mindless interpretation of Romans 13--an interpretation that could have been written by King George III or even Adolf Hitler.(Read my column regarding Romans 13 at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090715.html )Ignoring the great examples and exhortations of both Testaments, today's Christians seem to have lazily latched onto a modern-day "divine right of kings" philosophy, through which they have become the pathetic slaves of arrogant and pompous political wolves dressed (barely) in the sheepskins of legitimacy.Where are America's watchmen on the wall? Where are the great stories of courage and commitment demonstrated by America's founders that once emanated from church pulpits? How is it that today's Christians know more about sports celebrities than they do America's heroes? How is it that these lying, conniving, con artists called politicians can sucker church members as easily as they do the un-churched? How is it that Christians do not seem to recognize the devilish doctrines of socialism, fascism, elitism, or globalism for what they are? How can they be so easily manipulated? How is it that these corrupt politicians--who vote to kill unborn babies, merge America into internationalist and global entities, strip Americans of their God-given natural right of self defense, promote homosexual marriage, or allow America to lose its identity, culture, and heritage through unbridled illegal immigration--remain in "good standing" with any number of supposed "Christian" churches?Even though there are more churches in America than anywhere else in the world, the pastors and Christians of this country have, for the most part, become completely irrelevant to preserving "the blessings of liberty"--or even fundamental Biblical principles, for that matter.Churches used to be respected as lighthouses in communities: places free from the jaundiced juxtaposition of political correctness and avarice. Today's churches are filled with both. Where once churches stood as guardians of truth, they have now become progenitors of error. Where once preachers stood in the similitude of Elijah and John the Baptist, they now grovel in the image of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. Sunday Schools were once bastions of Bible teaching; today they are glorified coffee shops and playgrounds. The modern Christian home cannot even disciple its own children: how can it then be expected to "make disciples of all nations"?I repeat: the modern American church has, for the most part, become irrelevant.It is little wonder that more and more people are losing interest in the organized church. Instead of finding Christian love and kindness, they find the same kind of gossip, slander, petty bickering, favoritism, and selfishness that they might find at any office water cooler. Instead of hearing a prophet of God declare the Word of God, they hear a milquetoast minister meekly musing the latest self-help book.The complete irrelevance of today's organized church in America to the preservation of Christian liberty and constitutional government is especially disconcerting to those of us who still have freedom's fire burning in our souls. Where do we go for respite and instruction?I tell you the truth: there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic, freedom-minded Christians all over America who have had it "up to here" with these spineless social clubs called churches! They are tired of petrified pastors groveling before corrupt politicians and businessmen. They hunger for truth, and they are not finding it in most organized churches.As an example, go to my list of people who have written me to let me know that they are desperately seeking a Black Regiment-type church that they can attend. The list grows by the day. See the list athttp://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php#LookingThese people are not looking to be entertained or pampered. They do not care about social standing or making "business contacts." They don't care which church has the "most exciting" youth program, or how many softball teams it has. They want a church where the pastor isn't afraid to speak truth to power and take a stand for liberty. And, unfortunately, such churches are getting harder and harder to find.In fact, I submit that the true church is not "emerging"; it is "submerging." As in totalitarian regimes all over the world, where there are basically two types of churches: the organized State-approved church, where people who worship the State go to put on a religious show; and the underground church, where real Christians go to worship God with honest, likeminded believers.The "underground" church in America is not totally underground--yet. But the schism is taking place rapidly. Unlike the houses of State Worship, which enjoy large congregations and ornate buildings, underground churches are, for the most part, small and unassuming. Home churches are also mushrooming and must be considered part of the underground church movement. And, of course, Black Regiment churches are springing up all across the country. See the list of Black Regiment churches athttp://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.phpI am convinced that it is through these independent, unaffiliated, unorganized, or underground churches that relevancy will return. It is in these churches where Christians can be taught the Biblical principles of Natural Law, where children who are disciplined and know how to behave are not considered oddities, where pastors aren't afraid to proclaim truth, where people are still committed to constitutional government--and understand the difference between a democracy and a republic--and where self-serving neocons are not regarded as heroes.So, if you are a Christian and you want to be relevant to the preservation of liberty in this country, you need to get out of these establishment, State-worshipping churches and find yourself an "underground," unaffiliated, or Black Regiment church. And you need to do it quickly!*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php© Chuck BaldwinThis column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090825.html |
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
|
http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin527.htm Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?By
Chuck Baldwin
August 11, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
The
Internet is abuzz with news about the construction of internment camps
all across America. Of course, "mainstream" media outlets
refuse to touch the subject; or if they do, they pooh-pooh the story;
they do what Glenn Beck recently did: try to debunk the story as fallacious
and impugn people who speak of it as "conspiracy nuts." The
fact that the Becks, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O'Reillys of the media
circus refuse to deal with the construction of large numbers of internment
camps does not make them disappear, however.
For
starters, all anyone need do to begin a serious investigation of the
subject of internment camps is Google the phrase "FEMA Camps."
There is more than enough evidence in that search engine alone to keep
one busy with some in-depth private investigation of the subject for
quite a while.
As
people read my columns all across America, I have had numerous readers
contact me, saying that they have personally witnessed the transportation
of construction materials used for internment camps, have actually worked
in and around them, or have personally seen such camps. These eyewitness
testimonies have come from very credible people, including law enforcement
and military personnel, as well as airline pilots and construction workers.
Just
a few weeks ago, I was aboard a cross-country flight when the passenger
I was sitting next to (a total stranger) asked me to take a look out
the window. He asked, "Do those look like internment camps to you?"
I was astonished that the man (1) would even know to notice such a potentiality,
and (2) would be so bold as to ask such a question of a total stranger.
I must say, I was extremely happy to make his acquaintance. And we had
a very warm and invigorating discussion the rest of the trip.
We
were flying over Colorado, over extreme wilderness terrain, and, yes,
right in the middle of nowhere, the buildings and surrounding features
that I saw sure looked like internment camps to me. Of course, flying
at over 30,000 feet in the sky makes it difficult for any kind of detailed
analysis to take place; that is for sure.
This
is an advertisement by the National Guard promoting the Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist." Question:
why does the National Guard need to recruit Internment/Resettlement
Specialists? What do they know that we should know? Furthermore,
I have had military personnel tell me that many of the US military bases
that have been recently "closed" are also being prepared as
large-scale "holding areas."
Obviously,
the question that begs to be asked is, "Who is the US government
planning to intern and resettle?" And another question is, "How
many people are they planning to intern that would require the massive
number of camps that are apparently being constructed?"
Some
suggest that these facilities are being prepared for large numbers of
illegal immigrants. This seems extremely doubtful, however, considering
the propensity of the federal government to (1) do next to nothing to
seriously curtail the flood of illegal aliens into America, (2) do virtually
nothing to apprehend illegals known to be in the US, and (3) do everything
it can to facilitate the release of those illegals incarcerated by State
and local authorities. To think that the federal government intends
to place thousands of illegal aliens in internment camps borders on
lunacy. If anything, the federal government (with either Democrats or
Republicans in charge) has done everything it can to (1) entice illegals
to come to America, and (2) provide every incentive for them to stay
illegally in this country after having entered. I feel safe in saying
that we can eliminate the possibility that these camps are being prepared
for illegal aliens.
Others
suggest that these internment camps are being constructed to accommodate
"enemy combatants" from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Yet,
the total number of these types of detainees is miniscule compared to
the detention space being constructed. Can one really imagine the need
to build facilities that could accommodate prisoners numbering in the
tens of thousands to house a few hundred foreign troops? I don't think
so.
Then,
of course, there are those who continue to deny that these internment
camps exist at all. But then, were there not thousands of Germans who
denied the existence of concentration camps during World War II? These
types of people would refuse to believe the sun came up in the east
if the government spinmeisters told them it didn't. That
our federal government is building large numbers of "holding areas"
or internment camps seems to be an established fact. The only questions
that remain are "Why?" and "For whom?"
At
this point, the imagination can take us anywhere, but it is not a little
disconcerting when the same federal government that is building these
internment camps begins categorizing Christians, conservatives, people
who support the Second Amendment, people who oppose abortion and homosexual
marriage, people who oppose the North American Union and the New World
Order, people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration,
and people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin as "extremists,"
or "potential dangerous militia members."
Anyone
knows that before a government can begin persecuting and imprisoning
large groups of people, they must first marginalize them. As someone
said, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean they really
aren't trying to get you."
In
fact, an argument could be made that by today's politically correct
definition, America's Founding Fathers would be categorized as "paranoid,"
"extremists," or "potential dangerous militia members."
I would even go so far as to question the patriotism of anyone today
that is not a little paranoid. This federal government has certainly
earned whatever paranoia citizens feel. Feelings
of paranoia notwithstanding, why is the federal government constructing
large numbers of internment camps, and who does the government plan
on incarcerating in those camps? Those questions still need to be answered. P.S.
If you live within driving distance of Oklahoma City, or Tulsa, Oklahoma,
I will be appearing at several events in this area this Thursday and
Friday, August 13 and 14. I would love to meet any of my readers who
could attend these meetings. For details, go
here.
*If
you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial
opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit
card, check, or Money Order. Use
this link.
©
2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, July 24, 2009
|
The American Revolution RevisitedBy Chuck Baldwin's Son: Timothy Baldwin, Esq.,
July 24, 2009[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received
his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham,
Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office
and now owns his own private law practice. He is married to the former Miss
Jennifer Hanssen.]
Let's be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical
questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue
of "Who Is Sovereign in the United States." For our Founders, they fought,
bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to
rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution)
and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of
God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves;
and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we
the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today
in America, the question once again comes down to "Who is Sovereign in the
United States?"
Today, there are 3 basic options for "Who is Sovereign in the United
States": (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the
People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe
that the answer to this critical question is the Federal
government--especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of
and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though
public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws
are the "supreme law of the land" and that no state law or action to the
contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as
their "irrefutable" proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American
ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with "we the people."
However, the question must be more narrowly defined.
That is, does the sovereign power of we the people rest with all the people
in the nation as one body, or does the power rest with the people THROUGH
the respective States? The answer to this question cannot be overstated,
because if the sovereign power rests with we the people collectively as one
body, then the States have absolutely no power and at the ratification of
the US Constitution, the States lost all powers originally granted to them
by their respective sovereigns (the people of that State). To the contrary,
if Sovereignty rests within or through their respective States, then the
States conversely have more power than what is being admitted today by the
"Centralists" of our day.
Through an honest study of the history and the context of the Articles of
Confederation, the US Constitution, the Constitutional Convention and
subsequent Ratification debates, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist
Papers, the rulings of subsequent US Supreme Court Rulings and the writings
of political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and 1800s, the
conclusion is undeniable and clear: We the People are the Sovereigns of the
States respectively and of the States United through our respective States.
Thus, the issue is not who is Sovereign, because we know that We the People
are sovereign in the US and that the Sovereigns of each State have never
ceded to the Federal government any power not expressly granted to it by the
Compact (the US Constitution). But rather, the issue is one of JURISDICTION:
in other words, who has the power to act on behalf of and in compliance with
the Sovereign? The issue of jurisdiction is so important because it
acknowledges that since the Sovereign has "paramount authority" in
government, any powers that are granted from the Sovereign to government are
to remain within that grant of authority. Put another way, the States can no
more grant authority to the Federal government against the will of the
Sovereign--the people--than the Executive branch of the Federal government
can give to the Judiciary branch the powers that we the people granted to it
alone. To deny that such a grant exists or conversely to ignore the
limitations placed on the governments by the Sovereign is to suggest that
tyranny is a lawful act and that it must be complied with. America's
founders would have considered such a political theory to be treasonous. Do
we the people think so seriously of the matter? According to recent events,
the answer to this question will likely be answered sooner than later.
As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation
regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective
states. ( http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com ) More specifically, the
states of Tennessee and Montana have passed "Firearms Freedom Acts," which
have become law and which reaffirm their Sovereignty under the 10th
Amendment of the US Constitution. This law states that any firearms that are
made, sold and bought in that state are NOT subject to the Federal
regulations of firearms, because they are inherently internal affairs, which
exempt them from the commerce clause of the US Constitution.
As you would imagine, the Federal government, through its agency, the
Department of Justice, did not take too kindly to Tennessee's assertion of
jurisdiction over this matter and position that the federal laws did not
apply to the subject matter at hand. This federal opposition has become
known through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATF), whereby they informed the firearms licensees in an "open letter" in
Tennessee that the recently enacted law (Firearms Freedom Act) does not
apply and is void and that they (the firearms licensees) must still obey and
submit to the federal laws, regardless of the State's statute. (See
http://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/ATFfirearmsfreedomact.pdf )
This ATF response tells us the following about the federal government's
ideology of Sovereignty: (1) the federal government does not recognize the
lawful and independent jurisdiction of the Sovereigns of Tennessee to
operate their internal affairs as they deem proper and fitting; (2) the
Sovereigns of Tennessee do not possess lawful jurisdiction to govern
themselves through constitutional means; (3) the federal government has the
power and authority to control the internal affairs of all States, as they
deem fit. Bottom line, the Federal government is Sovereign. With their
theory in mind, however, what commodity, what relationship, what contract,
what service, or what molecule in this entire country would not be subject
to their control and power?
This issue is the very same reason why the Colonists declared their
independence from Great Britain in 1776 and why Great Britain declared the
Colonies to be in a state of rebellion against the government. The conflict
was in fact the application of their Constitution: whether it be a "living"
constitution or whether it be "fundamental laws" based upon the intent and
will of the people. The fact is, it was the Great-Britain-view of their
constitution verses the American-view of their constitution that caused the
conflict between the crown and the colonies. One historian summarizes the
conflict this way:
"The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. [The colonists], on the
one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by 'the law of
God and nature,' and founded in the principles of law and reason so that
Parliament could not alter it, but [Great Britain believed] that 'the
constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either
gaining or losing something,' and 'there are things even in Magna Charta
which are not constitutional now' and others which an act of Parliament
might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government
compromise was difficult to attain . . . Such differences in ideals were as
important causes of a breaking-up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more
concrete matters like oppressive taxation." (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The
Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [University of Michigan,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237).
Indeed, the issues of taxation during the 1760s and 1770s were only fruits
of the underlying issue, and that is, who is Sovereign in America. According
to Great Britain, the government had the power to impose its will on the
people of America despite the will of the colonies and despite the natural
laws governing the compact between the English people and their government.
In other words, the government believed that their constitution was
"living," giving the government power to impose its will on the people,
without the people's consent. The colonists, however, saw the matter to be a
usurpation of their God-given right to be governed by their consent and in
compliance with their constitution. The end result: the Sovereigns in each
colony seceded from the empire of Great Britain because of Great Britain's
refusal to follow their constitution.
Do Sovereigns throughout our States United not see the significance of the
issue we are facing today? Are we so blind to history that we cannot
compare this scenario to the very scenarios that led to the American
Revolution? Are we so ignorant as to the intents and purposes of the US
Constitution? Consider that the "supreme laws of the land" were never meant
to be carte blanche powers of the Federal government, but instead federal
laws were expressly limited by the terms of the compact between and for the
States, found in the Constitution. This concept of "supreme law of the land"
was expressed by a founding father, whom many would consider to be a
"centralist" in belief, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #27:
"[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy [meaning, the United States of
America--yes, even Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George
Washington, called the US Constitution a Confederacy, because they knew that
the nature and character of the compact of the US Constitution did not
change from the Articles of Confederation] as to the ENUMERATED and
LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the
land, to the observance . . . in each State, will be bound by the sanctity
of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the
respective members, will be incorporated into the operation of the national
government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS."
Hamilton's legal position concerning the limited power of the federal
government and the "supreme law of the land" was the consensus of the
founders, the States and we the people. Nowhere in America's founding was
there the notion that the supreme laws of the land were anything contrary to
the compact FOR the States. The supreme laws of the land are simply those
"fundamental laws" that we the people have created and imposed upon the
government to follow and uphold.
Of course, the question has been raised over the past 150 years of "who has
the power to determine whether or not the Federal government has usurped
their constitutional authority?" The popular answer is (wrongfully), the US
Supreme Court. God forbid that the Sovereigns of each State must wait and
rely on 9 federal judges to make rulings of this nature before a State would
have any legal rights or justification to act in accordance with the will of
their Sovereigns. Indeed, the ATF interpreted the Constitution unilaterally
without the opinion of the US Supreme Court and without opinion or order
denied the constitutionality of Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act. The
Sovereigns in each state have the same power, and the historical and legal
evidence is plentiful. Consider Thomas Jefferson's position:
"[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their
rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest
against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered,
not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding
to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of
separation." (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian
Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson,
[New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)
I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious
position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of
constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US
Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say "no"
to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the
point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts
of federalism, American-sovereignty, and constitutional limits and freedom,
as expressed by thousands of the most influential men in our history. And
such a person has accepted only those political means of redress whereby the
Sovereigns of each State drudge through the treacherous mud of tyranny and
get absolutely nowhere.
What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is
the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty--we the
people--and over Jurisdiction--the States. While this article cannot begin
to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a
study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between
the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain
parts of their sovereignty for the "more perfect union" of the people within
those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be
limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that
society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring
independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying
the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when
ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their
respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured
their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed
that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.
When this recognition resounds in the hearts and minds of the people, as our
Declaration of Independence states, "it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Do you really think
after only 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that
those same people who risked everything for independence from those
"living-constitutionalists" in Great Britain and who believed in the
principles seen in the Articles of Confederation would have completely
renounced their understanding of a Confederacy and Federalism and would have
resigned the same and delegated all of their powers that they fought and
died to secure for each State and for their citizens? If you think so silly
a notion, you severely impose injustice upon the intelligence and intentions
of our founders.
However, the record is clear that the Sovereigns of each State never ceded
to the federal government powers not expressly vested to it and never waived
the ability to reclaim that power through their proper channels--the
States--the same channels by which the US Constitution was ratified.
Consider the Sovereigns' voice in the State of Virginia in 1787:
"We the delegates of the people of Virginia . . . Do, in the name and in
behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers
granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United
States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to
their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby,
remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right, of any
denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the
congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity,
by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, EXCEPT
IN THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH POWER IS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THOSE
PURPOSES." (Emphasis added.)
However, the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in
the people of the respective states; it does not recognizes the respective
States' jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal
government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the
10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and
purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and
suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states,
the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of
course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we
see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom
Act.
The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist
status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and
philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground
any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of
Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the
matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make
a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy,
indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our
founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people
must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must
recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and
tyranny resisters.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
© Chuck Baldwin
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, July 18, 2009
|
The Billings Murders
by Chuck Baldwin
July 17, 2009
By now, most Americans are familiar with the horrific murder of a Pensacola,
Florida, couple by the name of Byrd and Melanie Billings. They were the
parents of 17 children, 13 of whom were adopted--most of whom had
disabilities. This case hits home with me, because they lived in my hometown
of Pensacola. I did not know them personally, but they were fairly well
known around town. Byrd was a well-to-do businessman who owned a used car
business and financial loan service.
Byrd and Melanie were shot to death in their own home a week ago Thursday.
So far, eight people have been arrested in the case: seven men and one
woman. The seven men are each charged with two open counts of murder, and
the woman is charged with accessory to murder after the fact. Law
enforcement officials said yesterday that at least one more "person of
interest" is being sought.
The Billings murder case was broken open by the fact that their home was
equipped with a surveillance system, which recorded the vehicle used to
transport the murderers to the home and probably much of the criminal
activity inside the house, although the sheriff's office has not released
the video of what was recorded inside the house. The video of the van led
police to the suspects. Our State Attorney, Bill Eddins, says that all of
the perpetrators who actively took part in the shootings are in custody. At
least five of the men were inside the house when the murders took place; and
police said the killers were in and out of the house in four minutes.
In a news conference yesterday, Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan and
State Attorney Bill Eddins said they have the murder "weapon or weapons."
They also said that the remaining "person of interest" was supposed to
disable the surveillance system but did not do so, which is why the system
was still operational when the crimes occurred. In addition, Morgan and
Eddins said the motive was robbery, because a small safe was taken from the
house, but that other motives could also apply to the killings. Federal
agencies are also assisting with the Billings murders, including the FBI,
BATFE, and DEA.
To my way of thinking, this case smacks of much more than a robbery gone
badly. There were at least eight, and maybe nine, people involved. Maybe
more. The invasion and killings were perpetrated in less than four minutes,
by multiple assailants, and with "military precision." The home invasion
took place at approximately 7:30 p.m. local time. And at the time of the
shooting, nine of the Billings children were in the home.
I believe murder, not robbery, was the motive. Extraordinary planning and
the number of personnel involved indicate to me that the Billings were
executed, and that robbery was an afterthought--or was even intended to be a
ruse to mislead law enforcement. The real reason behind the killings may
never be known, of course.
Regardless of the "why" and "how" of the killings, one thing is painfully
obvious: a violent attack took place against a man and his wife inside their
own home. And while the circumstances of the Billings case may be
sensational, the simple fact that a couple was murdered inside their own
home has become rather commonplace throughout the United States. Nationwide,
home invasions are skyrocketing.
Home is the one place where most of us feel safe and protected. Even those
who have a keen sense of self-defense feel free to let their guard down at
home. And, sadly, most people do not possess a keen sense of self-defense.
Most people have the deluded opinion that law enforcement will protect them.
But even law enforcement professionals will tell you it is not their job to
protect citizens; it is their job to apprehend and bring those who have
committed crimes to justice. In other words, after you are dead, the cops
will try to catch the guys who killed you.
It is time that people wake up to the fact that the responsibility of
self-defense rests with each individual citizen. We are all vulnerable to
attack--even in our homes! For this reason, our federal Constitution and
most (if not all) State constitutions recognize the Natural Law right of
people to keep and bear arms.
Over the past 40-plus years, however, miscreants in Washington, D.C., and in
our State capitols have been whittling away at the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. Lawful gun dealers are being harangued and harassed out
of existence by the BATFE. Law enforcement agencies and State prosecutors
often side with criminals when they are shot in self-defense by intended
victims (especially in the Northeast). The media often characterizes lawful
gun owners as "gun nuts" or "militia members" to try to create the
impression that they are "dangerous" or "extremist." Public
education--especially higher education--is often a willing participant in
helping to demonize gun owners. Even Hollywood often uses its influence to
sway public opinion against gun owners. All this, coupled with a natural
lazy tendency of urban living, equates to a careless and defenseless
society: something both would-be tyrants in government and street criminals
love.
Fortunately, America's founders were wiser than most of today's generation.
They understood the relationship between the citizen's right (and
determination) to keep and bear arms and his or her safety and security.
For example, Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the
use of arms." He also said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . .
disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes .
. . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an
unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Likewise, Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms, like laws, discourage and keep the
invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived
of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart
of man, the weak will become prey to the strong. The history of every age
and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments
when they prove themselves."
The Billings double murder is the latest example of just how vulnerable we
all are to the violent tendencies of evil people. For this reason (and
more), every American should (1) resist any and all attempts by government
to curtail or restrict our legal right to keep and bear arms, and (2)
purchase, practice with, and always keep our own personal firearms handy.
Furthermore, we should always live in a heightened "state of alert" (even in
our own homes), because both our lives and our liberty may depend on it.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
© Chuck Baldwin
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
|
Romans Chapter 13 Revisited
by Chuck Baldwin
July 15, 2009
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our
Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise
reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans
Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read
your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating
what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the
other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument
are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their
escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the
way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously
misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans
Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good
works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be
afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this
cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending
continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues:
tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honour to whom honour."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not
oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates
have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I
doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal
custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval
custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on
the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren
sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I
think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a
law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but
does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An
employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in
the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how
to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in
nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men.
(Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but
his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly
limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is
the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no
power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it
that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has
no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law
(and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are
founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).
The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to
thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates
have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no
authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And
anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling
Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power
and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed
the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate
God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab
and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority
when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's
principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to
not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's
principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image
of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to
authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon
Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to
authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?
Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work?
In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile
civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church
history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all
stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did
all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to
authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including
the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil
authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be
predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said,
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than
just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means
we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness
of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a
result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted.
Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both)
could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to
resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve
that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a
monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this
country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of
men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress,
or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme
Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises
to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand
the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy
elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every
elected official to obey the U.S. Constitution (and his or her State constitution).
Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no
[Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the
Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the
Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution
is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render
therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our
responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the
teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected
representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional
government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other
governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three
of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S.
Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face
the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil
authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders
to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the
"supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly
believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil
magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
© Chuck Baldwin
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
|
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Good For Nothing Christians
By Chuck Baldwin
July 7, 2009
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour,
wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be
cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." (Matt. 5:13 KJV)
Jesus said that salt without savor is "good for nothing." Savor is the
ingredient, the character that gives salt its quality--and its value. When
salt is as it should be, it is a most precious commodity. Not only is it
used as a seasoning; it is, more importantly, a preservative. As most
everyone knows, salt was the primary source of food preservation before the
days of refrigeration. Salt has been deemed to be so valuable at times that
wars have actually been waged over it. During times of unusual deprivation,
salt can be even more valuable than precious metals. But when salt loses its
saltiness, it is absolutely worthless; it is "good for nothing."
Jesus plainly proclaimed that He viewed His disciples as being the salt of
society. In other words, when believers have the character they should have,
they provide the preservation of the land. They hold back and retard the
putrefying properties of spoilage and decay. But when Christians lose their
character, when they lose the internal resistance to decay, they become
"good for nothing" and the result is, the land is "trodden under foot of
men."
It grieves me to say that, for the most part, the modern Christian, the
modern pastor, and the modern church have lost their savor. Taken as a
whole, we have lost our inner character: the ability to resist decay and
preserve the land has long departed, and America is fast being "trodden
under foot of men."
Our churches are no longer places of respite from the world: they are
mirrors of it: the same dress; the same attitudes; the same carnality; the
same spirit; the same stubbornness; the same pride. Churches are no longer
bastions of truth: they are glorified social clubs or mere corporations,
where Christianity is never allowed to interfere with business. Instead of
being watchmen on the wall, our pastors are CEOs or, even worse,
politicians. Popularity and personal ambition far outweigh commitment to
truth and an independent mind. And as for Christian homes, forget it. The
modern American home is straight out of Isaiah chapter three: "babes shall
rule over them." In the average "Christian" home, children rule the mothers,
and mothers, in turn, rule the fathers. Discipline and instruction are out;
leniency and ignorance are in.
We have a pandemic all right, but it's not the swine flu: it is a pandemic
of spineless Christianity. Parents who cannot stand up to their own
children; pastors who cannot stand up to their own congregations; religious
leaders who cannot stand up to politicians; and churches that cannot stand
up to unconstitutional government.
Our so-called "conservative Christian" special interest groups are far more
concerned about not losing financial contributions than they are about
confronting the real evils of society. And as far as the Religious Right is
concerned, it lost its soul somewhere early on in the first administration
of George W. Bush.
If one is looking for someone to blame America's demise on, don't look to
the prostitutes, drug dealers, or crooked politicians: look no further than
the doorsteps of America's churches. While the ominous clouds of oppression
and tyranny boil overhead, our churches are content to play kid games and
wallow in their own materialism and laziness. I realize there are exceptions
to the rule, of course, but they are few and far between.
Sadder still is the lack of anything on the horizon that points to any kind
of spiritual awakening. Look at the churches that are growing: for the most
part, they are of the Joel Osteen and Rick Warren variety, where conviction
has been replaced with compromise, and popularity has replaced principle.
Genuine Bible prophets usually occupy the pulpits where hardly anyone
attends. Truth has been replaced with entertainment, and calls for
repentance are drowned out by the clamor for prosperity theology.
I can tell you from personal experience that, in more than 34 years of
Gospel ministry, it has never been harder to continue to carry the torch of
truth than it is today. It takes a toll on one's physical health and
emotional being, and even on one's family. Any pastor desiring to carry the
torch of truth today need not expect to have many friends. And any
evangelist desiring to carry the torch of truth today need not expect to get
many meetings. Truth is about as popular as a bad case of the measles, and
yes, I mean among today's professing "Christians."
Should it surprise us, then, that we see the encroachment of our liberties
and the erosion of constitutional government coming hard and fast? Should it
surprise us that America is losing its conscience--not to mention our
heritage? Should it surprise us when we see hundreds of large, empty
internment camps popping up everywhere? Should it surprise us when we read
of would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., trying to pass egregious
legislation that would strip us of our Bill of Rights? Should it surprise us
when we see multinational corporations working with foreign governments to
erode the sovereignty of these United States? Should it surprise us when we
see both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations look the
other way while our borders are being invaded and even erased?
When the salt loses its savor, it is "cast out, and to be trodden under foot
of men." And that is exactly what is happening to us today.
Does all this make me fatalistic? Not at all. I am absolutely convinced that
God will always reserve to Himself a faithful remnant and a land of liberty
for those who desire it. But before we talk about the land, we must be sure
that our hearts are willing to pay the price to obtain it. We'll leave that
discussion for another time.
In the meantime, the clarion call to "come out" of this apostate,
compromising, and carnal "church" is a good place to begin. We created our
Black Regiment directory to help people find churches that were willing to
stand up for Christ and liberty, as did colonial preachers of old. To locate
Black Regiment churches and pastors in your area, or to volunteer to be a
Black Regiment pastor, go to
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
© Chuck Baldwin
Powered by | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|