Top

What A Waste!

August 1, 2015 by · 2 Comments 

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the biggest failure in America is the establishment church. It’s a bigger failure than even the federal government. Now that’s saying something.

No people in Church history had been given the rich heritage of the churches of America. The Church of America was birthed by the courage and sacrifice of men such as Jonas Clark, John Peter Muhlenberg, James Caldwell, Joab Houghton, et al. These men stood in the gap and rallied the Christians in Colonial America to dispose of a tyrannical British Crown and to help create a land of liberty such as the world had never before seen.

Alas, the courage of the patriot pastors of Colonial America has been forgotten; their sacrifice wasted. Everything they purchased with their dynamic and powerful preaching has been squandered by generations of gutless, ear-tickling men-pleasers in these entertainment playgrounds known as churches. What a waste!

However, as far gone as we are, if even a significant percentage of the 300,000-plus evangelical churches (not to mention Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.) would stand up NOW and begin sounding the clarion call of national repentance and constitutional liberty, the ship of state could yet be turned around. But there is NO SIGN of that happening. NONE!

What would it take to get the pastors of America to take a stand? One would have thought that expunging prayer and Bible reading from our schools back in 1962 and 1963 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that copying the Nazi playbook for gun control back in 1968 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that legalizing the cold-blooded killing of unborn babies back in 1973 would have done it. It didn’t. One would have thought that beginning the construction of a Police State back in 2001 would have done it. It didn’t. And one would have thought that the legalization of same-sex marriage would have done it. It hasn’t.

At this point, it does seem obvious that the vast majority of pastors in America are content to allow this country to nose-dive into destruction without as much as a whimper. Again, what a waste!

It is one thing to be born in an enslaved country with the weight of the state forbidding public dissent or freedom of assembly, worship, and speech. It is one thing to be born with the shackles of bondage firmly fastened around your neck from the time of your entrance into the world. It is another thing altogether to be born in a land of liberty where one’s ancestors broke the shackles of tyranny at the cost of their very lives–thus allowing us to live in a land where the freedom of dissent, the freedom to elect our civil magistrates, the freedom of speech, assembly, and worship (not to mention the freedom to keep and bear arms) are sacrosanct–only to then turn around and squander our liberty and to allow would-be tyrants to take it from us without a fight. What a waste! What a horrible, terrible, awful waste! And that is exactly what the last few generations of so-called “preachers” have done.

Think what these pussyfooting preachers have lost: they failed to preserve the sanctity of life; they failed to preserve the sanctity of marriage; they failed to preserve the sanctity of the Holy Scriptures; they failed to preserve the sanctity of liberty; they failed to preserve the sanctity of honesty and decency; they even failed to preserve the sanctity of the Church itself.

Truly, “Ichabod” is written over the establishment church in America. And, as a result, “Anathema” is being written over the entire nation. I am convinced that any spiritual renewal that might still come will mostly bypass America’s establishment churches and will be carried by nontraditional, non-aligned, unincorporated, unaffiliated–maybe even underground–fellowships. This is what is currently happening in communist–and other–oppressed countries. And America is fast becoming an oppressed country.

In fact, if the pastors in America had even a fraction of the man-stuff that the pastors in Colonial America had, they, too, would be sounding the clarion call of independence and secession. Like King George’s England, Washington, D.C., has become a corrupt cesspool of wickedness that is using every means possible to wrap its tyrannical tentacles around every State, city, hamlet, and village in the entire country. At some point, the only options freedom-loving people in this country will have are slavery or secession. And that point may come a whole lot sooner than most of us expect.

So, what has happened to the Church? How did our pastors become so timid? How could the direct descendants of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Patriots become so cowardly? Here are the reasons:

1. The Church, which is the Bride of Christ, entered into an adulterous relationship with Caesar when it put on the state’s official wedding band: otherwise known as the 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization status. At that moment, it became a “creature of the state” and left the sanctity of its spiritual wedding to Christ. That happened in 1954. In just a little over a short half-century later, the Church has lost, not only the virtue of its own spiritual institution, but also the virtue of the most fundamental institution of all: Holy Matrimony.

Yet, instead of sounding forth the message of truth regarding this attack against Western Civilization itself, our pastors stand mute and apathetic, holding onto their precious tax-exempt status with their last waning breath. In practice, our pastors are saying exactly what the Pharisees said in Jesus’ time: “We have no king but Caesar.”

2. The heretical misinterpretation of Romans 13 that teaches Christians must submit to civil government “no-matter-what.”

This fallacious doctrine has damned America. Our pastors and churches are following the Nazi playbook verbatim. True resistance to evil must, by nature, come mostly from spiritual sources, because the battle between good and evil is mostly a spiritual battle. Therefore, it is obligatory that our spiritual leaders be the ones leading this battle. Alas, for the most part, this is not happening.

In the name of Romans 13, our spiritual leaders have abandoned the battlefield. They have sounded retreat. They have waved the white flag. They have capitulated. They have surrendered. And the enemy has taken the field.

I submit that at the judgment bar of God, these squeamish milquetoast preachers are going to have to apologize, not only to Clark, Muhlenberg, Caldwell, and Houghton, but also to every courageous man and woman throughout history. Think of Gideon and Samson and Samuel and David and Vashti and Esther and Daniel and Micaiah and Jeremiah and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Think of Simon Peter and James and John, and even Paul, the man who penned Romans 13.  Think of the Anabaptists, the Waldensians, the Protestant Reformers, and the martyrs of the Dark Ages. Think of the Scots and Irishmen and Americans. Think of the persecuted people of Tibet and Burma and Sudan and Saudi Arabia and China and Palestine. Think of the millions of people throughout the centuries who stood against oppressors and tyrants of all stripes and types–be they political, religious, or military–and said, “No!”

I say again: what a waste!

3. The heretical “feel-good,” entertainment-oriented Prosperity Theology that has infested America’s churches.

Men such as Joel Osteen are Pied Pipers of a sleep-walking church whose music is only serving to march these unsuspecting souls into the gulags of a modern inquisition. Yet, these sycophants lead the largest churches in the country.

“Like priest, like people.” People have heaped to themselves teachers having itching ears. They have sown to the wind, and they are reaping a whirlwind. They are like the Israelites of old who refused to listen to God’s prophets and, instead, gave heed to the hireling-prophets of Ahab.

4. Then, there are the folks who think they must help God fulfill Bible prophecy.

First, there is Mr. Warmonger himself: John Hagee. This man, and thousands like him, have convinced their churches that they must help God establish His Kingdom on the earth. They have appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner of all things pertaining to the Middle East. Their loyalty does not reside in America; it resides in the modern state of Israel–a nation that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Biblical Israel. Their erroneous interpretation of Genesis 12 has created a climate of war and hatred that is tearing the soul out of America. All of these perpetual wars that are being fomented in the Middle East are done in the name of Genesis 12, in much the same way that our domestic internment is being facilitated in the name of Romans 13.

Folks, God didn’t need anyone’s help when He sent His Son to earth the first time, and He doesn’t need anyone’s help when He decides to send His Son to earth the second time.

Secondly, there are those well-meaning Christians (I think) who actually believe it is their God-ordained duty to do nothing to resist evil.

I received this post on my Facebook page just this week: “None of these things [the evil, calamitous things happening to our country] could have been prevented, nor should they have been. All these things must come to pass before the Lord returns. In this world, nations rise and nations fall, and this one just happens to be falling right now. Praise God! I praise God for the destruction of this evil nation! I wish the Lord would return right now! But unfortunately, he will not return until ‘everything that must happen, has happened.’ The sooner these things happen, the sooner the Lord can return.”

I wonder if this Christian gentleman is going to be praising God when his children or grandchildren are put to the rack or his mother and father are tortured or his wife and sisters are molested and ravaged.

Yes, I realize that our sainted forebears often endured the most hideous treatment with spiritual and moral courage, but no one in their right mind would wish such treatment on their loved ones–especially if they had the power to prevent it. This man rejoices over his country’s destruction? This man is NOT in his right mind. The prophets of old wept over the destruction of their beloved nation. Jesus wept over the impending destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

But this is the kind of rationale one gets from these pastors and churches who use the Scripture to brainwash people into attitudes of fatalism. They are the ones who become nothing more than their own self-fulfilling prophecies. They stand back and do nothing and then claim to praise God when their own indifference grows into their own destruction. Such people are NOT in their right minds.

Famed Nineteenth Century revivalist Charles Finney is widely reported as saying, “If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, 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 Christianity, 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.”

Amen!

The Church is to blame for legalized abortion on demand; the Church is to blame for the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage”; the Church is to blame for the growing Police State in this country; the Church is to blame for America’s war-mongering abroad; the Church is to blame for the growing influence of false religions in America.

When America is lying in the graveyard of history, the epitaph on its tombstone will read, “Here lies the United States of America: killed by the apathy and indifference of its pastors and churches.”

As I again reflect on the giants who thundered forth liberty from the pulpits of Colonial America, and I see the behavior of so many of our pastors today, I can only repeat: What a waste!


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

July 12, 2015 by · 3 Comments 

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

The Man Who Fired The Shot Heard ’Round The World

April 18, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

This Sunday, April 19, is rightly identified as “Patriots’ Day.” In truth, April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate Patriots’ Day as enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful that many Americans don’t remember what happened on this day back in 1775. This was the day the “shot heard ’round the world” was fired. It was the day America’s War for Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren (who dispatched Paul Revere to Lexington and Concord with the news), Pastor Jonas Clark alerted his male congregants at the Church of Lexington that the British army was on its way to seize the colonists’ weapons and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock. Both men had taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home with about a dozen of the pastor’s men guarding the house. Other men from the congregation (around 75-80 in number) stood with their muskets on Lexington Green when over 800 British troops appeared before them at barely the break of day.

According to eyewitnesses, British soldiers opened fire on the militiamen without warning (the British command to disperse and the British opening salvo of gunfire were simultaneous), immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen took cover and returned fire. These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. Again, this took place on Lexington Green, which was located in the shadow of the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. The men that were guarding Adams and Hancock escorted them out of harm’s way shortly before the troops arrived. Without a doubt, the heroic efforts of Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen at the Church of Lexington saved the lives of Sam Adams and John Hancock. And eight of those brave men gave their lives protecting two men who became two of America’s greatest Founding Fathers. But, mind you, Jonas Clark and his men are as important to the story of America’s independence as any of our Founding Fathers.

According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who died on Lexington Green on that fateful April morning: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John Brown, all of Lexington, and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.

By the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two elements of American history are lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was attempted gun confiscation by the British troops that ignited America’s War for Independence, and 2) it was a pastor and his flock that mostly comprised the “Minutemen” who fired the shots that started our great Revolution.

With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of the Pilgrims,” as one Colonial pastor’s descendent put it.

It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America would not exist.

Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence; and in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.

James Caldwell

James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em Watts!” story.

During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the colonial militia ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell galloped to the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals, threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts, of course.

The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah, in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name today.

John Peter Muhlenberg

John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock, Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia, Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes chapter three to his congregation. He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past and it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.

Muhlenberg was later promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental Army, and later, major general. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

Joab Houghton

Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House at worship when he received the first information regarding the battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

“[M]ounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he beckoned 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 in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William. Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876, rev. 1976. Print.)

Jonas Clark

As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.

On the one-year anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor, Church of Lexington.”  You can find the book here:

Nordskog Publishing

In the Introduction to the book, Gerald Nordskog writes this about Pastor Clark:

“As the pastor of the church at Lexington, he typically gave four sermons a week, written out and orally presented–nearly 2200 sermons in his lifetime. His preaching was vigorous in style, animated in manner, instructive in matter, and delivered with uncommon energy and zeal, with an agreeable and powerful voice. His sermons were rarely less than an hour, often more.”

Nordskog then quotes the Rev. William Ware, who wrote the following a little less than one hundred years after the Battle of Lexington:

“It can be regarded only as a singularly happy circumstance that, as Lexington was to be the place where resistance to the power of England was first to occur, and the great act of a declaration of war first to be made by the act of the people in the blood to be there shed, making the place forever famous in history, the minister of Lexington should have been a man of the principles, character, courage, and energy of Mr. Clark.

“It can be regarded he was eminently a man produced by the times–more than equal to them; rather a guide and leader. All his previous life, his preaching, his intercourse and conversation among the people had been but a continued and most effectual preparation for the noble stand taken by his people on the morning of the 19th of April, 1775. The militia on the Common that morning were the same who filled the pews of the meetinghouse on the Sunday morning before, and the same who hung upon the rear of the retreating enemy in the forenoon and throughout the day. They were only carrying the preaching of the many previous years into practice.

“It would not be beyond the truth to assert that there was no person at that time and in that vicinity–not only no clergyman but no other person of whatever calling or profession, who took a firmer stand for the liberties of the country, or was more ready to perform the duties and endure the sacrifices of a patriot, than the minister of Lexington.

“When the struggle actually commenced, the people were ready for it, thoroughly acquainted with the reasons on which the duty of resistance was founded, and prepared to discharge the duty at every hazard. No population within the compass of the Colonies were better prepared for the events of the 19th of April, than the people of Lexington; no people to whom the events of that day could more safely have been entrusted; none more worthy of the duties that fell to their lot; or who better deserved the honours which have followed the faithful performance of them. No single individual probably did so much to educate the people up to that point of intelligence, firmness, and courage, as their honoured and beloved pastor.”

Of course, Clark, Houghton, Muhlenberg, and Caldwell, were not the only ones to participate in America’s fight for independence. There were Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr. John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina. Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.

So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence that, at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)

And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our fight for independence, so many pastors throughout Colonial America preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits that the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment (referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and example of Colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown and win America’s freedom and independence.

I invite readers to visit my Liberty Church Project website. We are currently engaged in the noble endeavor of helping to resurrect the patriot-pulpit throughout the United States. Perhaps we could help you. Here is the website:

Liberty Church Project

This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers. So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the destruction of its liberties?  Where are the preachers to explain, expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ? Where are the pastors to preach the truth about Romans chapter 13?

Readers should know that my constitutional attorney son, Tim, and I have co-authored a blockbuster book dealing with Romans 13. The book is entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” It can be ordered at:

Romans 13: The True Meaning Of Submission

Plus, I also delivered four messages dealing with Romans 13. The message series is entitled, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” These four video messages have been recorded on one DVD and may be ordered at:

Romans 13 DVD

I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is in the sad condition it is in today is because the sermons most Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits refuse to deal with the salient issues of the day and, therefore, our Christian people are mostly uneducated and ignorant of the great Biblical truths relating to liberty and Natural Law. This milquetoast preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” misinterpretation of Romans 13, have made it next to impossible to find Christian men with the courage and resolve, and even more importantly, the knowledge and understanding, to stand against the assaults on our liberties.

America cut its spiritual teeth on the powerful preaching and exemplary examples of men such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and, yes, Jonas Clark. That most churches do not have pastors such as these is the main reason America is in the miserable condition it is in today.

Then again, for the most part, our churches have the kind of pastors they want, don’t they? I wonder just how many churches today would even tolerate the kind of sermons Jonas Clark delivered. So, ask yourself, dear Christian friend: if you claim to be a patriot, why do you stay in a church that lacks a patriot-pastor? We have the kind of government we vote for and the kind of church we attend and give to. Think about it.

At any rate, this Sunday, April 19, marks one of the most significant dates in American history. And it is significant, in great part, because of the courage and sacrifice of a pastor and church congregation. I wonder how many pastors across the country will even mention it from the pulpit this Sunday. I wonder how many people in the congregation will miss it if they don’t.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Neoconservatism – Where Trotsky Meets Stalin And Hitler

April 7, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

Eleven years ago I wrote a column for the print edition of Chronicles under this title. Tom Piatak’s grim reminder of the continued destructive presence of this cabal in what passes for the commentariat in today’s America has prompted me to dig into my old files and recap for our readers the historical and ideological roots of neoconservatism. The 2004 diagnosis, reproduced here in an abbreviated form, still stands.

The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. [Half a century] later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.”

Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today’s neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. The similarities deserve closer scrutiny and may contribute to a better understanding of the most influential group in the U.S. foreign policy-making community.

Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives’ hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there are also glaring differences in economics. However, the neoconservative glorification of the free market is mere rhetoric, designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of state capitalism—within the context of the global apparatus of the World Bank and the IMF—that Hitler would have appreciated.

Some form of gradual but irreversible and desirable withering away of the state is a key tenet of the Trotskyite theoretical outlook. The neoconservatives, by contrast, are statists par excellence. Their core belief—that society can be managed by the state in both its political and economic life—is equally at odds with the traditional conservative outlook and with the non-Stalinist Left. In this important respect the neoconservatives are much closer to Stalinism and National Socialism.

They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it—especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon. Even when they support local government it is on the grounds that it is more efficient and responsive to the demands of the Empire, not on constitutional grounds.

The neoconservative view of America as a hybrid, “imagined” nation had an ardent supporter eight decades ago: in Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler argued for a new, tightly centralized Germany by invoking the example of the United States and the triumph of the Union over states’ rights. He concluded that “National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.”

Hitler was going to make a new Germany the way he imagined it, or else destroy it. In the same vein the Weekly Standard writers are “patriots” only insofar as the America they imagine is a pliable tool of their global design. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States’ federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints. The lines they inserted into President Bush’s State of the Union address [in January 2004] aptly summarized their Messianic obsessions: the call of history has come to the right country, we exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers, we know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation: “The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”

Such megalomania is light years away from a patriotic appreciation of one’s nation. A psychotic quest for power and dominance is the driving force, and the “nationalist” discourse its justification. The reality is visible in ultimate distress: Towards the end of the Second World War Josef Goebbels welcomed the Allied bombing for its destruction of the old bourgeois cuckoo-clock and marzipan Germany of the feudal principalities. Driven by the same impulse, Bill Kristol’s “national greatness” psychosis seeks to sweep away the old localized, decentralized America of bingo parlors and little league games.

Most heirs of the Trotskyite Left are internationalists and one-world globalists, whereas all neoconservatives are unabashed imperialists. The former advocate “multilateralism,” in the form of an emerging “international community” controlled by the United Nations or through a gradual transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings exemplified by the European Union. By contrast the neoconservative urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples bears resemblance to the New European Order of [the early 1940’s], or to the “Socialist Community” that succeeded it in Eastern Europe. Even when they demand wars to export democracy, the term “democracy” is used as an ideological concept. It does not signify broad participation of informed citizens in the business of governance, but it denotes the desirable social and political content of ostensibly popular decisions . . .

Whereas the Trotskyite Left is predominantly anti-militarist, the neoconservatives are enthusiastically militarist in a manner reminiscent of German and Soviet totalitarianism. Their strategic doctrine, promulgated into official policy [in September 2002], calls for an indefinite and massive military build-up unconnected to any identifiable military threat to the United States. Their scribes demand ‘citizen involvement,’ in effect, militarization of the populace, but the traditional ‘citizen soldier’ concept is reversed . . .

The neoconservative mindset is apocalyptic (which is a Nazi and Stalinist trait), rather than utopian (which characterizes the Trotskyite Left). The replacement of the Soviet threat with the more amorphous “terrorism” reflects the doomsday revolutionary mentality that can never rest. New missions and new wars will have to be engineered, and pretexts manufactured, with the same subtlety that characterized the “attack” on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on August 31, 1939. Even the tools for the enforcement of domestic acquiescence are not dissimilar: the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire. Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and the historicist Messianism equally common to fascists and communists, Michael Ledeen wrote that “creative destruction” is America’s eternal mission, both at home and abroad, and the reason America’s “enemies” hate it: “They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

The neoconservatives’ mendacity apparent in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi crisis to the American people recalls the Goebbelsian “hypodermic needle approach” to communication, in which the communicator’s objective was to “inject” his ideas into the minds of the target population . . . [which] is echoed in our time by the Straussian dictum that perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is necessary because they need to be led, and they need to be told what is good for them. On this, at least, Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler would all agree. (As Hitler had said, “The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble.”) In the Straussian-neoconservative mindset, those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.

That mindset is America’s enemy. It is the greatest threat to the constitutional order, identity, and way of life of the United States, in existence today. Its adherents have only modified the paradigm of dialectical materialism in order to continue pursuing the same eschatological dream, the End of History devoid of God. They are in pursuit of Power for its own sake—thus sinning against God and man—and the end of that insane quest will be the same as the end of the Soviet empire and of the Thousand-Year Reich.


Srdja (Serge) Trifkovic, author, historian, foreign affairs analyst, and foreign affairs editor of “Chronicles.” He has a BA (Hon) in international relations from the University of Sussex (UK), a BA in political science from the University of Zagreb (Croatia), and a PhD in history from the University of Southampton (UK).

www.trifkovic.mysite.com

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim To Divinity

March 28, 2015 by · 1 Comment 

[K]eep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:14-15)

Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty

All men not surrendered to Christ act as if they’re sovereign. Men identifying themselves as patriots often claim to be sovereign. No! There is only one sovereign.

To claim sovereignty is to not only claim autonomy1 from God, it’s to usurp Yahweh’s2 place as God.3 Human sovereignty, as expressed in the theory of natural and unalienable rights, is not a biblical concept. Rather, we can trace it back to the Age of Enlightenment. In fact, autonomous sovereignty can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve’s rebellion in the Garden when they challenged Yahweh’s sovereignty and thereby attempted to establish their own.

The reality is: man is but a pot in the hands of the Potter:

But now, O Yahweh … we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8)

[S]hall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:20-21)

Sovereign rights

As Creator, the Potter has the authority to do with His pots whatever He chooses. As Sovereign, He has the right to do whatever He decides with His entire creation. In fact, He’s the only one with this right. As the Potter, all rights are exclusive to Him.

“Certainly, we have a right to life!”

Do we? Does man have a right to life? Or is even the right to life exclusive to God?

If man has a right to life, that right then dictates God was obligated to create us. If this is true, who’s really the prime cause: the Creator who was obliged to provide the right or the created who had the right to life?

Only Yahweh has a right to life. It’s inherent in who and what He is: I Am That I Am—the great and only self-existing I Am That I Am.

For us, life is not a right. It’s first a gift from the Life Giver and then a responsibility. We are obligated to use our lives as intended by the One who gave us life.4 To claim life as our right is to eliminate any requirement of responsibility to our Creator. In reality, it’s an attempt to usurp His exclusive claim to sovereignty.

The inherent problem in claiming even life as a right should be obvious. Is it any different with other rights—even those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which are hallowed by most Americans, particularly Christians?

Most Americans view the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution as sacrosanct and inviolable. But this is the song of a siren.5

The First Amendments guaranteed rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Are these rights enumerated in the First Amendment biblical? If they’re biblical, they’re guaranteed by Yahweh. If guaranteed by Yahweh, they should be found in the Bible. If they’re not biblical, they’re “guaranteed” by someone else who can and has incrementally taken them away:

In Understanding the Constitution: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Supreme Law of the Land, David Gibbs, Jr., and David Gibbs III argue for unalienable rights:

Our rights come from God, not from the state. Therefore, the state cannot take them away. What Uncle Sam gives, Uncle Sam can take away. But our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our rights are unalienable because they come from God.

This sounds wonderful, but is it true? The State has certainly taken away an unwanted infant’s right to life. The State has incrementally taken away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.6 The State has taken away the right to happiness, in particular the right to own property. Because rights come from the State, the State can take them away at its pleasure.7

The right to religion

What about the First Amendment’s right to religion as provided in the Free Exercise Clause? Does man have a right to whatever religion and god he chooses? If so, how does this comport with the First Commandment?

I am Yahweh thy God…. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:2-3)

For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14)

Man may choose to follow a god other than Yahweh, but he does not have the right to do so. It logically follows: Should government then provide such a right? If it does, what’s this say about such a government?8

If it’s your right to choose any god you prefer, you cannot be judged for doing so. And if you can’t be judged for choosing another god, who’s really sovereign?

It’s not our sovereign right to choose our god but God’s sovereign right to choose us. Consequently, the alleged right to choose one’s god is itself a claim to divinity, tantamount to what was offered Adam and Eve in the Garden, “Ye shall be as gods!”

Christians need to rethink their love affair with First Amendment’s seditious “right” to religion. It was provided not by Yahweh, but by a group of Theistic Rationalists and Enlightenment Freemasons, whose ideological paradigm is polytheistic to its core.

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is responsible for transforming America from what was a predominantly monotheistic Christian nation (a united nation under one God) into one of the most polytheistic nations ever (a divided nation under many gods). It is arguably the most clever cover devised by man for sedition against Yahweh. It certainly has duped the majority of Christians into promoting the First Amendment as if some grand Christian ideal is found therein.

Only the Sovereign has a right to religion.

The right to free speech and a free press

How about the First Amendment’s right to free speech and a free press? If these rights (and the others enshrined in the Bill of Rights) are biblical like many Christians believe they are, they must originate in the Bible.

There are two inherent problems with the oft-parroted concept of God-given Constitutional rights:

1) Except perhaps as the Paper’s Timekeeper in Article 7, the Constitution knows nothing of God.

2) God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with God-expected responsibilities.

Is there anything in the Bible that provides for or even allows for people to gather for any reason whatsoever or to freely say anything they choose? No, there is not. Instead, the Bible puts limitations on both these activities.

Under the Constitution, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, infanticide, sodomy, violence, obscenities, and other atrocities condemned by Yahweh.

Are these rights provided by your Sovereign? Indeed, they are! That is, if you look to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights as unalienable, established and secured by We the People in the Preamble.

What about what’s said about God? Do we have a right to say anything we wish about Yahweh or does the Bible put limitations on what can be said about Him?

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:15-16)

Exodus 23:13 commands us to not even mention the names of other gods. The Bible condemns any favorable or casual promotion of other gods, whereas the First Amendment protects the “right” of those who do so.

The right to free assembly

The provision in Amendment 1 for U.S. citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to provide sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to peaceably assemble? If you’re a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must defend the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas, thereby becoming complicit in their sins.

The Second Amendment Right

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“Certainly, we have the right to defend ourselves and our families!”

No, we do not! We have the responsibility to do so:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

The Second Amendment is one of the very few components in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that’s close to being biblical. However, the late 18th-century founders robbed bearing arms of its potency when they replaced the non-optional, God-expected biblical responsibility to bear arms in defense of ourselves and our families with the optional Enlightenment right to do so.

An optional right is much easier for government to control, manipulate, and even divest. Think about it: The Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed” is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altoghether.9 This is the inherent nature and danger of alleged God-given rights as opposed to God-expected responsibilities.

Even when it comes to the Second Amendment, it’s not our optional right to bear arms in protection of ourselves, our families, and others. It’s our responsibility to do so, not because of some undefined, indistinct natural law, but because the one and only Sovereign dictates it in His revealed Word.

Only One with rights

There is only one Sovereign, and, as such, rights are exclusive to Him. The rest of us are endowed with responsibilities to Him. To claim otherwise is to usurp His jurisdiction as God, which is what the Enlightenment founders did. This insidious, age-old battle is found time and again throughout the Bible.

When the late 18th-century founders replaced immutable biblical responsibilities with capricious human rights, they replaced Yahweh as Sovereign with We the People. Their government guarantees seditious unbiblical rights, which non-Christians and Christians alike have been more than happy to claim.

Americans have been spellbound by the song of a siren. In the process, they have traded Yahweh’s righteousness for their own alleged rights. Claiming rights to ourselves rather than responsibility to the one and only Sovereign is just another instance of man’s sacrilegious claim to divinity. May God have mercy on us!10

Related posts:

Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity (audio sermon)

Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights

America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights

Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

  1. Autonomy or self ruled as opposed to theonomy or God ruled.
  1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Regrettably, it was deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
  1. Could You be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?
  1. Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights
  1. America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights
  1. The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight (audio sermon)
  1. Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
  1. Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
  1. The Second Amendment is Doomed
  1. Petition for Forgiveness Signature Pledge

Ted R. Weiland is a guest columnist for Veracity Voice

Needed: The Third Continential Congress

March 1, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

As much as we liberty-loving, Constitution-loving, America-loving patriots hate to admit it, the government in Washington, D.C., is NOT fixable. The elitist power structure in D.C. is too ensconced and too powerful. They will never cede power to folks, such as Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc., who truly believe in limited government. Nor will they permit the states to reclaim ANY of their constitutionally recognized powers. And neither party in D.C. has enough Ron Paul-types to thwart the evil machinations of the power-drunk leviathan that is Washington, D.C.

Furthermore, the same forces of darkness that control the political establishment in Washington, D.C., also control the media and financial establishments in New York City. The voters of America have too often rejected the presidential and congressional candidates who had the potential to help lead our ship of state to safer waters (if we even have untainted elections). The warnings of the prophets and porters have fallen on deaf ears. For the most part, Americans refuse to dislodge themselves from their addiction to government handouts. In addition, America’s pastors have largely abandoned their calling to be watchmen on the wall, which has left our ship of state without a moral compass or a spiritual rudder.

As much as I hate to say it, it is becoming more and more clear that Washington, D.C., may not be fixable. If that’s the case, it is only a matter of time before freedomists will be forced to do what freedomists have always been forced to do when facing a tyrannical juggernaut: declare independence.

The closest thing America has had in modern times to Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson is former Congressman Ron Paul. In late January, Dr. Paul brought a speech before the Mises Institute. The theme of the event was “Breaking Away: The Case For Secession.”

In his address, Ron said, “‘And it’s [secession] not gonna be because there will be enough people in the U.S. Congress to legislate it. It won’t happen. It will be de facto. You know, you’ll have a gold standard when the paper standard fails, and we’re getting awfully close to that. And people will have to resort to taking care of themselves. So when conditions break down, you know, there’s gonna be an alternative. And I think that’s what we’re witnessing.’

“Later, Paul said the Federal Reserve would end and the states would stop listening to federal laws they didn’t agree with.

“‘The Fed is gonna end. There is going to be a de facto secession movement going on. The states are going to refuse to listen to some of the laws. We’ve seen tremendous success already with states saying to the federal government, “We’re not gonna listen to you anymore about the drug laws.” And they’re getting out of it, and I think the American people are waking up to that, and as far as I’m concerned, the more the merrier.’”

See the report here:

Ron Paul: “Good News” That Secession Is Happening

I believe Dr. Paul is right. Secession (“de facto” or otherwise) is inevitable. How it will come and when it will come is debatable. That it will come is not. The only question is, do we wait for a national or international crisis of apocalyptical proportions or do we begin the debate now in the relative tranquility of peace and order? I say we should begin the debate NOW.

The assaults against our liberties are rooted and grounded inside The Beltway. The federal government in Washington, D.C., has been attacking our Natural rights for decades, to the point that it is almost insufferable. It is fomenting war and aggression all over the world; it is turning people around the globe into the enemies of the American people; it is training its own officers to enslave the American citizenry; it has set up a domestic military command that is nothing less than an occupation force; it has passed laws and policies stripping the American people of virtually every freedom protected in our Bill of Rights; it has set the world’s most sophisticated spy system against its own citizens; it has freely allowed violent criminals and gang members from foreign nations to have unfettered access to America’s heartland; it has dictated policies to the sovereign states to the point that our states more resemble national provinces; it has taken liberty to the precipice of destruction.

The powers of darkness manipulating the politicians in Washington, D.C., are leading us to financial collapse and global war. They are manipulating the east and west against each other; they are facilitating the military build-up of China; they are goading Russia into war; they are manipulating the collapse of the U.S. dollar; and they are declaring patriotic, God-fearing Americans as “homegrown terrorists,” while creating real terrorists abroad.

I propose that the People of the several states begin calling for The Third Continental Congress to the intent that this Congress proposes, debates, and eventually votes on the decision to declare independence from the government in Washington, D.C.

Delegates to such a Congress would by necessity be sent by the People of the states, not by the State legislatures. The focus of the Congress would be singular in purpose: to debate and eventually vote on a resolution of independence. I think the resolution of The Third Continental Congress should mirror Richard Henry Lee’s resolution during The Second Continental Congress in 1776:

“Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

I am fully aware that this is a bitter thought to contemplate. It is for me, too. But, ladies and gentlemen, there may be no other way to preserve liberty in our land.

Granted, if Ron Paul (or perhaps his son, Rand) could obtain the White House–and providing he could stay alive–substantial victories could probably be wrought over the Beast. We should NOT stop fighting for the principles of liberty. No one is more engaged in the liberty fight than I. And I will continue to be engaged.

Furthermore, I continue to believe if America’s pastors and churches would collectively awaken to the principles of liberty, see “the man behind the curtain,” and aggressively preach and teach the principles of Natural Law regarding government, a certain amount of time might be able to be purchased. That’s what I’m trying to accomplish with my Liberty Church Project. It’s yet to be seen how quickly we will be able to restore patriot pulpits to America.

Yet, many patriotic folks mistakenly believe that we must preserve the Union at all costs. This is NOT the case. We must preserve LIBERTY at all costs. Our loyalty to the Union should only be up and unto the point that it “becomes destructive” to the security of our liberties. Our original Declaration says it plainly:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The mood for such a declaration is already growing. I believe if such a Congress were convened, several of our sovereign states would vote in the affirmative. I think states such as Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, Alaska, and even Hawaii, would seriously entertain such a resolution. The actual number of states who might be inclined to vote in the affirmative could potentially number at least half (or more) of the total states in the Union.

The idea that we will be able to maintain the Union under the growing tentacles of Washington, D.C., while maintaining liberty at the same time is now an utterly irreconcilable notion. As did our Founding Fathers before us, we have made–and continue to make–repeated redresses, we have convened conferences, we have repeatedly petitioned, and we have “voted the bums out” over and over again. No matter! The Beast in Washington, D.C., only gets more and more insatiable in its hunger to eat away our liberties. At some point, the American people must take their principles of liberty to The Third Continental Congress and vote on a Twenty-First Century declaration of independence.

And, no, a modern declaration of independence does not have to be bloody. Had Scotland voted for independence a few months ago, would London have sent troops to stop them? Absolutely not. World opinion would not tolerate it. Plus, the need for peaceful trade, commerce, and mutual self-defense would demand cooperation between neighboring governments. This would equally apply in North America.

What separation would likely accomplish is to take the teeth out of a ravenous Beast. It would accomplish what our separation from Great Britain accomplished two hundred years ago. The Beast would not be able to subjugate the free people of a new nation. No longer would it be able to play the world’s policeman. No longer would it be able to freely foment hatred and war between nations. Plus, it would give the new republic that would likely form the opportunity to export the ideas of liberty, free enterprise, peaceful trade and diplomacy, etc., around the world. You know, the ideas and principles that the United States USED to export. Separation might actually save, not just the liberties of the American people, but the lives of people around the world from a global catastrophe.

The worst scenario is that the American people wait until the powers of darkness controlling Washington, D.C., bring about a global apocalypse before they realize what they must inevitably do. That is the scenario that Dr. Paul alluded to in his remarks referenced above. The better scenario is that the American people have the sagacity and foresight to see the storm clouds on the horizon and put in motion NOW the remedy for their–and their children’s–survival.

Unfortunately, the established track record of the American electorate seems to favor Ron Paul’s scenario. I much prefer that liberty-loving patriots begin broaching this subject NOW, before times are desperate.

Either way, sooner or later, in my lifetime or not, in a time of relative peace or extreme chaos, separation is inevitable, because unless the patriot pulpit quickly returns to America, or a Ron Paul-type leader be elected President, the government in Washington, D.C., is not fixable. And as such, we desperately need The Third Continental Congress. It just might be liberty’s last chance.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Why Not One Governor Is Qualified To Be President

February 21, 2015 by · 2 Comments 

Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

That “opinion” has been accepted. The despotism has befallen us. The oligarchy reigns.

In recent times federal judges have ruled that Arizona must provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, states such as Utah and Alabama must allow faux marriage, and a Wisconsin voter-identification law is unconstitutional. And these are just a few examples of judicial usurpations that continue unabated and go unanswered. But the answer, which needs to be given first and foremost by governors, is simple:

“No.

No — I will not abide by the court’s unjust ruling. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, insofar as the central government or judiciary violates it, it renders itself illegitimate. As the governor of my state and head of its executive branch, I am charged with the enforcement of its laws. And we will recognize no more unconstitutional juridical or federal dictates.”

(Note: while my main focus here is our much abused judicial review, I’m advocating the same course with respect to all unconstitutional dictates.)

If this seems radical, note that even Abraham Lincoln agreed, saying in his first inaugural address, “[I]f the policy of the government, upon the vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The process I’m advocating here is known as nullification. And should anyone still think it radical or unprecedented, know that we’d only be taking a leaf out of the Left’s book. Explanation?

What do you think “sanctuary cities” are?

They’re places where liberals have decided they’re simply going to resist federal immigration law.

What do you think is happening when states (e.g., Colorado) and leftist municipalities ignore federal drug laws? Nullification is happening.

Yet no matter how egregious, un-American, unconstitutional and despotic the federal or judicial usurpations, the conservative response is typified by what Utah governor Gary Herbert said — feeling oh-so principled, I’m sure — after the federal faux-marriage ruling: “[U]ltimately we are a nation of laws and we here in Utah will uphold the law.” Yes, we’re supposed to be a nation subject to the rule of law.

Not the rule of lawyers.

And our governors are allowing subjection to the latter, feeling noble playing by rules the Left laughs at.

It’s not surprising that revolutionary spirit has been cornered by liberals. The only consistent definition of “liberal” is “desire to change the status quo” — it is revolutionary by definition. In contrast, the only consistent definition of “conservative” involves something antithetical to revolution: the desire to maintain the status quo. Of course, it completely eludes conservatives that today’s status quo was created by yesterday’s liberals. And one modern status quo is to lose culture-war and political battles to the Left. And, boy, do conservatives ever maintain that one. They’re like a guy who goes into a fight, gets poked in the eyes and kicked in the kneecaps, loses, and then the next time still thinks he’s got to follow Queensbury rules.

We hear a lot of talk about “states’ rights.” Ex-Texas governor Rick Perry was a good example of a big talker. But where’s the beef? Merely flapping lips doesn’t sink big-government ships. There have been nullification efforts by state legislatures, mainly regarding federal gun-control law, and many sheriffs across the country have vowed not to enforce such law. And Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore is currently defying a federal faux-marriage ruling. This is laudable, but why are the chief executives MIA? If only we had a governor with the guts of a good sheriff.

We’re meant to be a nation of states, not a nation state. But rights mean nothing if you’re not eternally vigilant in their defense, if you don’t actively stand against those who would trample them. In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder threatened Kansas with legal action over a new anti-federal-gun-control state law. If the courts ruled against the state, what would Governor Sam Brownback do? Make some “principled” comments about the rule of law(lessness) and then assume the prone position?

This is why I say not one governor is truly qualified to be president: If a chief executive will not oppose federal tyranny while the head of a state government, why should we think he’d oppose federal tyranny once head of the federal government?

History teaches that entities don’t willingly relinquish power; it didn’t happen in 1776 and it won’t happen now. People are generally quite zealous about increasing their power, though. This returns us to the courts’ usurpations. Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision — by the Supreme Court.

That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.

Of course, unilateral declarations of power are not at all unusual historically. It’s what happened whenever an agent of tyranny — whether it was a conquering king, communist force or crime syndicate — took over. But these despotisms were enforced, as Mao put it, “through the barrel of a gun.” It wasn’t usually the case that the subjects rolled over like trained dogs lapping up lawyer-craft. Oh, it’s not that I don’t see the crafty lawyers’ position. I might like to crown myself Emperor of America, but, should I insist I possess this unilaterally-declared status with enough conviction, I may get a stay in a mental institution. The courts get to dictate to everyone else and spread insanity all the way around.

Perhaps it needn’t be stated, but the power of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution. So is it any wonder that a federal court, concerned about Barack Obama’s comments relating to the judiciary, asked his administration in 2012 to submit a formal letter indicating whether or not it recognized the power? Judicial review, being an invention, is dependent upon the acquiescence of the other two branches of government.

Oh, and what is Obama’s actual position? He believes in the court’s power — when it serves his agenda. Otherwise, he’s willing to ignore court rulings himself, as he did when suing Texas over voter ID in 2013. (In fact, never mind the courts. Obama ignores duly enacted federal law he doesn’t like.)

The lesson?

We can even learn from Obama.

The idea of judicial review is thoroughly un-American. As Jefferson also pointed out, judges are not morally superior to anyone else, having “with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” Despite this, he wrote in his letter to Roane, while we’re meant to have “three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another,” judicial review has given “to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others”; moreover, he continued, this power was given to the very branch that “is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Jefferson then warned that this has made the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” And our country is being twisted along with it as patriots twist in the wind.

Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Nonetheless, most conservatives are waiting for the next election or the next court ruling or the next president to right the ship, but they and their republic will die waiting when remedial action can be taken now. Nullification — when properly exercised, it’s a fancy way of saying “standing up for the law of the land.” Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions.

It’s waiting there for you, governors, glory and God’s work. We just need a leader, someone with greater passions for principle than “for party, for power.” It’s waiting.

Rise, American hero, rise.


Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Love It or Leave It

February 7, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

A half century ago the infamous and timeworn trope coming from the supporters of the Viet Nam War was all over the airwaves. “Love It or Leave It” was the standard retort from the gung-ho believers to the anti-war activists, who filled the streets with civil disobedience. An entire era of youth came under suspicion, from fathers of that “Greatest Generation” for questioning the purpose and wisdom of American leaders and the military policy that drafted dissenting objectors into coercive service.

Now with the undying “War on Terror” as the trumped up cornerstone of government survival, the same old party line of jingoism rises again to smear any opposition of the all mighty war machine.

The following is written by a student, Alex Bertsch, not back in the 1960’s but in this year.

“I can’t question the actions of the military without being anti-American. I can’t question events like the My Lai Massacre, in which U.S. Army soldiers killed between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in Vietnam, with virtually no punishment. I am barely allowed to question the Haditha Killings, in which U.S. Marines killed 24 civilians in 2006. Questioning these atrocities would be “un-American.”

As the public is being conditioned for the next round of conflicts, the mere idea of conducting an open and frank debate is too dangerous to allow. So when the hullabaloo over the Chris Kyle movie, “American Sniper” exploded, the NeoCons rushed in to prance out their ultranationalism for the NWO age. Just what kind of world has these super patriots of the internationalist imperium bestowed on humanity?

Start with a review of the violent history of our species and especially the involvements from our own country in its short existence.

In the lifetime of the eldest living Americans, the Major Military Operations Since World War II, gives a summary of the largest involvements.

For a more comprehensive analysis of American conflicts, “We’re at War!” — And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making, provides an exhausted list.

  • Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
  • No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president.  Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
  • The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
  • The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

If the goal is to build a global empire, all these campaigns fit a pattern of design and intention. But is this the true purpose of our founding as a nation?

When John Milton Hay Secretary of State coined the phrase, “A Splendid Little War” – Whose War Is It?, he must have known that expansion to form an intercontinental realm was put irrepressibly in motion.

“This NeoConservative philosophy is pure Internationalism in its most raw form. It is the antithesis of traditional American policy, and attempts to foster a new imperialism that is totally out of step and discredited by civilized societies. The portrait of the ‘Ugly American’ is one that needs to be relegated to the scrap heap of embarrassed memories.”

Regretfully, the entire last hundred years, billed as the American century, just continued an imperialism that kicked off with the Spanish American War. This foreign policy never made the world safe for some mythical “Democracy”, but actually set forth a domination culture of rhetoric and force that fostered the economic corporatist interests, protected by garrison outposts scattered around the world.

So what slight of hand or mental hypnoses keeps the gullible public from facing up to the indisputable facts that all these oversea adventures actually destroy our country’s real security?

Libertarian Jacob G. Hornberger makes a striking argument in THE TROOPS ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY that help answers this question. This viewpoint goes directly to de-constructing the silly blind faith that the pudden-head flag waivers keep following with every additional failed overseas venture.

“The mindset that is common to U.S. troops serving overseas is that they are all doing it for America, for us, for our rights and  freedoms, for our safety and security. They’ll all tell you that they are doing it because they love their country.

There’s one big problem with that mindset, however. The truth is that the troops, through what they’re doing over there, are indirectly destroying our country, our rights and freedoms, our safety and security, and our economic well-being.

Once again, the justification is to “keep us safe.” Safe from what? From the people over there who are angry over what the troops are doing over there. The more people the troops kill and maim, the angrier people get, the greater the threat of terrorist retaliation, the greater the need to keep us safe, and the greater the infringements on our freedom and well-being.

The troops have convinced themselves that they’re over there killing the people who would otherwise be coming over here to kill us. That’s ridiculous. If people wanted to come over here to kill us, they could easily circumvent the troops and come over here and kill us.”

With the open border approach in effect, the long forgotten Monroe Doctrine exempts the refugees from our hemisphere from colonizing our own land. Such acts of aggression go unpunished, while deploying foreign legions around the rest of the globe is defended as necessary.

Wake up America! Where is the common sense to ignore the pontifications of government authorities and trained seal newspeak propagandists?

Celebrating the gallantry of a Navy Seal psychopath assassin like Chris Kyle defies the most rudimentary sense of moral scrutiny, even if one wants to argue the “just war” theorem. However, if you candidly research the covert connections in the creation, funding and training of the mythical terrorism threats, the conclusion will adopt the undeniable linkage to Western government’s hidden hand behind the scenes.

Ken O’Keefe, a former US Marine discusses Washington’s major role in either generating or aggravating most of the current crises across the world and allowing groups like the ISIL Takfiri terrorists to foster and grow in the video US can no longer deny its support for ISIL.

Much has been written about how the world has changed after 9-11. The three videos on 911 a saga of deceit and lies goes unanswered because the facts presented has no legitimate counter by the establishment warmongers.

Chicken hawks, like Senator Lindsay Graham that routinely spread their dribble on Faux News are reprehensible. When his patron oracle Senator John McCain spills his vile indignation, the pompous faithful of the permanent warfare society rally round his banner.

The Zero Hedge article asks important questions, 59% Of Americans Support Post-9/11 Torture – Propaganda, Cultural Sickness, Or Both? The way you answer directly reflects your attitude about the supposed “War on Terror”. Whatever it takes to keep the homeland safe never includes questioning the factual circumstances that reveal the false flag nature, used for the phony justification to build a domestic police state.

There is no place for the “Truth Movement” in the realm of the NeoCon right-thinking camp. One such Kool-Aid dispenser in the deadly disease of disinformation is Cliff Kincaid. His article, Lies of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement, published in Accuracy in Media is a classic in denial.

“The “inside job” theory of 9/11 is appealing to those holding a Marxist or anti-Semitic view that American foreign policy is secretly manipulated by “imperialist” or “Zionist” agents. On other occasions, the puppet-masters are “global elites” or members of secret clubs. These theories preclude serious thinking about why America is under attack and by whom. Facts and evidence don’t matter when a theory about sinister secret agents with no names makes more sense.”

Paleo-conservatives are the genuine voice of authentic conservatism. The Love It or Leave It crowds of paper mache sword waving jingoists, who purport to be patriots are committed internationalists in the advancement of an American Empire. Their bellicose and warmongering mindset is no formula for genuine patriotism.

More Liberty Now concludes and asks a question that few dare to confront.

“Love it or leave it” admits that the government is a monopoly that claims ownership of us all. This ultimatum is not compatible with free market beliefs. It advocates settling for mediocrity and a monopoly. Worst of all, it’s a false choice since the very government we are urged to love will not allow anyone to leave its jurisdiction. That doesn’t fit within any definition of ‘patriotic’ I’m aware of. Does it fit yours?”

People are so dumb down about true national security since 911 and gleefully boast and demonstrate their pride in stupidity. Hypocrites who refuse to face reality about their government and foreign policy wickedness, while pretending to be champions of American principles are mentally ill betrayers.

Amerika is in a death spiral because denial is the new national anthem, sung to the tune of THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC, for an American nation that no longer exists.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Will Freedom Survive 2015?

January 18, 2015 by · 4 Comments 

Something as precious and valuable as a nation’s freedom is not lost in a day–or even in a year. There is no single event that turns citizens into slaves. Oppression and tyranny are always long in the planning–and even longer in the making. Granted, there could be a single chain of events that results in a people’s enslavement: Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 Russia, Mao Zedong’s Communist Revolution in 1949 China, for example. But these events did not take place spontaneously or in a vacuum. Conditions for these enslavements had been ripening for years. Old barns don’t collapse without years–even decades–of mitigating factors (very obvious and noticeable factors). Neither do nations.

They say that we begin to die as soon as we are born. And in a philosophical meandering sort of way, I suppose that’s true. And if that maxim is true for individuals, it’s also true for nations. For example, the tyrant and betrayer of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, Abraham Lincoln, planted the seeds for the globalist Woodrow Wilson, who planted the seeds for the socialist Franklin D. Roosevelt, who planted the seeds for the corrupt Lyndon Baines Johnson, who planted the seeds for the narcissist Bill Clinton, who planted the seeds for Mr. Police State, George W. Bush, who planted the seeds for the Marxist Barack Obama. And all along the way there were Supreme Court justices, congressmen and senators, international bankers, and most of all very lethargic and lazy pastors, who facilitated and abetted the diabolical and duplicitous deeds of the aforementioned presidents.

In a very real and practical way, the American republic was birthed as a strong and healthy body amidst the blood of the patriots in 1775 and ‘76. Suffice it to say, the free republic of our forefathers is a very weak and diseased body today.

The malady that eventually takes the life out of a sick and diseased man may not have, by itself, been deadly, but coupled with years of preceding sicknesses, it is the one that is listed on the death certificate by the coroner as the cause of death. Such is also the case with a nation.

The numerous ostriches that are so quick to dismiss every national warning as being just another Chicken Little false alarm continue to dismiss any new attempt to awaken a distracted people with what should be obvious to anyone who can see. In truth, the vast majority of Americans are behaving exactly as did the very rich and pompous passengers on board the Titanic. As the stewards were rushing room to room and cabin to cabin warning passengers that the ship was sinking, they continued to frolic and dance, completely deaf and indifferent to the cries of the porters.

On the whole, the American people have ignored the warnings of freedom’s faithful stewards such as Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul. For the most part, the criers of liberty on the Internet and in talk radio are also ignored.

There are several reasons why so few seem to even see the water rushing up the floors of the ship of state. For one thing, too many of our men have abdicated their manhood. In the glorious history of liberty, when one would observe men with painted faces, they were marching into battle. Today, they are marching into football stadiums. Sports are more than a pastime; they are an addiction. Today’s American men are so beset by sports and pornography that they can barely see the reality that is staring them in the face.

A lying, deceitful, and deliberately conspiratorial national news media is also a major contributor to the collapse of the American republic. No doubt about it! Nazi Germany’s Joseph Goebbels had NOTHING on the propaganda machinery of the American mainstream news media. Put our public (and many private) education system on the list, as well. Yes, the entertainment pimps, who have sold their souls to lust and perniciousness and who love to corrupt the morals of young people, should also be on the list. And, last but not least, a very passive, indifferent, feel-good, corporate Church might possibly be the worst offender of all.

As we enter into 2015, all of the above are already eating the flesh away from Lady Liberty. The condition is near-terminal. Even worse is the recent prognosis of what can only be regarded as the final stage for this morally and politically cancerous-ridden body: the Police State.

Just recently, Ron Paul wrote, “If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state.”

See Dr. Paul’s excellent column here:

Inner City Turmoil And Other Crises: My Predictions For 2015

Ron is right! “We NOW [emphasis added] live in a police state.” We are not HEADED for a Police State; we are IN a Police State.

Perhaps not surprisingly, people who escaped totalitarian regimes in other countries and fled to America are the ones who more readily recognize the rise of totalitarianism here in the U.S. than those of us who were blessed to be born here.

Realizing the ostriches will bury their heads in the sand after reading what I’m about to say, I’ll say it again, anyway: the problem is NOT drugs; the problem is the WAR on drugs. The problem is NOT Muslim countries; the problem is an interventionist foreign policy which has waged WAR on Muslim countries for decades. The problem is NOT poverty; the problem is the WAR on poverty. The problem is NOT terror; the problem is the WAR on terror; the problem is NOT racism; the problem is the WAR on racism. The problem is NOT political correctness; the problem is the WAR against political incorrectness. The problem is NOT America’s Christian heritage; the problem is the WAR against America’s Christian heritage. The problem is NOT free speech; the problem is the WAR against free speech. The problem is NOT the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; the problem is the WAR against the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The problem is NOT firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens; the problem is the WAR against the Second Amendment. The problem is NOT that people hate us because we are free; the problem is they hate us because we make WAR against their freedom when it doesn’t comport with the globalists in Washington, D.C., New York, and London.

A Police State is the practical result of everything mentioned in the paragraph above. And a Police State is the final stage of a nation that is losing its liberty.

And in case someone is forwarding this column to a friend or relative who is still in the dark that, yes, America is ALREADY living under a Police State, I invite them to keep an eye on the Police State page on my website for continuing examples of that reality. See it here:

Emerging Police State

But I warn you: be prepared to spend a lot of time getting current, because the facts and realities that America is already a Police State are multitudinous.

The only remaining question is when will the PTB (Powers That Be) decide to collapse the curtain? Will it be 2015?

We are being set up BIG TIME for another faux-9/11 event: Ferguson; the Paris attacks; ISIS; Senator Dianne Feinstein talking about terror cells already being in the states; Senator Lindsey Graham’s fear-mongering; Senator John McCain’s fear-mongering; the media’s ubiquitous assault against the Second Amendment; the Supreme Court’s continuous rubber stamping of domestic spying; an arrogant White House that illegally acts with impunity against the liberties of the American people; a cowardly and complicit Republican Party that works to protect the big-business interests of Wall Street more than the liberties of the people on Main Street; ad infinitum.

No, I suppose there is one last question: will the American people ever wake up? And, of course, the even greater question is, will the Church ever wake up?

Folks, when the Police State is fully functioning, there is no place to go except into submission or revolution. But revolution without righteousness is no solution at all. Rightly did Patrick Henry call it, “the holy cause of Liberty.” Without an understanding of the undergirding Natural Law principles of liberty, without an understanding of the rightness and justness of liberty, without a moral and reasoned conviction in the hearts and minds of men regarding liberty as the divine will of our Creator, no revolution could be blessed of Heaven. And that’s where the pastors and churches come in; and that’s where the pastors and churches are failing–and failing MISERABLY.

Will freedom survive 2015? There have been a myriad of contributing factors to America’s demise extending over a long period of time, but a Police State is the last and final stage of a diseased and dying nation. We are in that stage NOW. And America’s pastors are the only antidote.

This is no game, folks. If you believe in liberty for our country and for your children, you must get out of these corporate churches that are dancing with the devil and letting the forces of hell obliterate our liberties. If your pastor isn’t preaching the Biblical Natural Law principles of liberty, find one who will.

Let me ask it this way: will freedom survive 2015 if it depended on the pastor of the church that you now attend? If the answer is “No,” why are you still there?


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Kudos To All Of My Fellow Patriots

January 11, 2015 by · 2 Comments 

Counting the sellouts, sycophants, sissies and socialists (by whatever name they call themselves, including Republican) is certainly easier than counting the plucky, perspicacious, passionate patriots, that is for sure. For every one of the latter, there are thousands of the former. In fact, since God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had he found a faithful ten (out of a population of around ten thousand), it may be that America is teetering around that same percentage. We might be looking at a similar one in a thousand preserving percentage in this country today.

On Capitol Hill, there are fewer than fifty House members and senators (out of 535) that could be categorized as faithful patriots. In certain State houses and senate chambers, the percentage would be considerably higher. In many states, however, the percentage would be much lower.

When it comes to America’s pulpits, the percentage of faithful patriots is almost certainly no more than five percent. That was the percentage of faithful pastors in Nazi Germany who boldly stood against Hitler’s Police State. And I’m confident the percentage of pastors in America today who are courageously standing against the modern-day Police State is about the same.

There are almost NO mainstream journalists in print or television who haven’t sold their souls to a paycheck. The same is true for the talking heads on the talk radio shows. Likewise, the vast majority of our judges seem completely ignorant of constitutional government and the Bill of Rights–or have complete contempt for the same. As for educators in the halls of higher learning, forget it!

From a futuristic perspective, the horizon of America can be put into three basic camps: 1) Jesus is going to come like the Seventh Cavalry and bail all of the good Christians to Heaven, and then destroy everything; but who cares? Only the “bad” people will be here, 2) There is no hope; it’s all over; it’s only going to get worse until the fiery end comes, and all one can hope for is to prepare his family and close friends to “survive,” 3) All of the trends point to a continuing demise of liberty, and, in all probability, the future will be very problematic for EVERYONE (Christians and unbelievers alike), but our Creator–who is the author of liberty–still has a providential plan for freedom in this land and is (and will continue) separating and calling out a courageous remnant for that purpose. Put me in the last camp.

With all due respect, I think the folks who align themselves in the first two camps are trying to escape reality and evade responsibility. One is as bad as the other. The one who sits back and does nothing because he believes God would never allow Christians in America to go through “tribulation,” and the person who believes tribulation is coming but the only option is to hide in a hole (figuratively speaking) are both abrogating their responsibility to be the “salt” of the earth and the protectors and defenders of liberty.

However, between the two, I feel more umbrage against my Christian brethren in the first group. They are supposed to have the Spirit of God in them. They are supposed to be students of the Scriptures. More than anyone, they should be the ones to take seriously their charge to “Occupy” till Christ comes.

Try selling the line that “Jesus won’t let us go through tribulation” to the Christians in Sudan. For the last twenty years, more than two million Christians have been persecuted, imprisoned, beheaded, disemboweled, dismembered, tortured, sold into slavery, hung on crosses, etc., in that war-torn land. I guess God doesn’t love those poor suffering souls as much as He loves us soft, self-righteous, comfort-crazy, entertainment-mad, feel-good Christians in America. What rubbish!

Try selling that line to the beleaguered Christians in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Burma, China, India, even Israel, etc. These believers have been in tribulation for generations. Only in America could a theological position on eschatology result in a complete slave-mentality.

I can understand people who don’t believe in God losing hope and resorting to withdrawing from society. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand my Christian brethren using the doctrine of the Rapture as an excuse to remove themselves from the freedom fight. Personally, I think the doctrine of the Rapture is often nothing but a covering to mask the cowardice or indifference that grips their hearts.

Therefore, I regard patriots as possibly being from virtually any religion, church denomination, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, educational background, or social strata. I know Catholics who are patriots, Mormons who are patriots. I know Jews who are patriots. I even know Muslims who are patriots. Yes, you read it right, Muslims. There are patriots who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc. There are self-proclaimed liberals who have more understanding of liberty than many professing conservatives. There are patriots counted among the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Reform Party, the Green Party, etc.

As Thomas Jefferson and John Adams stood side by side for the Declaration of Independence, as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin, did the same, so I will stand with any defender of liberty, regardless of race, religion, denomination–and even with those who have no faith.

Of course, my approach to liberty is God-centered. And my hope in the future is, likewise, God-centered. I do not believe that God is finished with liberty in America. And I am convinced that God is calling out a freedom-remnant even as we speak. I see this almost every week here in the redoubt of the Montana Flathead Valley. I am very much a realist; but I am very much NOT a pessimist. I guess I am a futurist: I believe there is a future for liberty-minded people in this country. The one in a thousand is still among us; I am convinced of that.

On Capitol Hill there are a faithful few: Justin Amash of Michigan, Mike Lee of Utah, Steve Stockman of Texas, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, for example. (I’m withholding judgment on Rand Paul, although among the current list of presidential hopefuls, I like him best so far. I think his foreign policy is far superior to that of Ted Cruz. But Ted’s stand on illegal immigration eclipses Rand’s so far. So, I’m reserving judgment. Jeb Bush is disaster!)

In many State legislatures, there are dynamic patriots fighting ferociously for our liberties. I’m talking about people such as Montana’s Jerry O’Neil, Washington State’s Matt Shea, and Nevada’s Michele Fiore.

Behind the pulpit, there are only a precious few numbered among the patriots. Those five pastors whom the Liberty Church Project just recently helped to withdraw from (or bypass altogether) the devilish 501c3 tax exempt organization status stand out. Warren Luke Campbell and his dad, Warren Campbell, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Tony McGhee in Wilmington, North Carolina, Eric Philpot and Nathan Kealer of Dallas,Texas, and Roy Magnuson and his son, Josiah, in Greenville, South Carolina.

Of course, Dr. Greg Dixon, Sr. has been in the freedom fight longer than most of us have been alive. And Dr. David Manning has been an indefatigable opponent of the New World Order as I have ever seen. He just might be the most politically incorrect and bravest pastor in America. And thank God for patriot-preachers such as David Schnittger, Paul Blair, Barry Byrd, Stevie Craft, Hal Curtis, Wiley Drake, Jay Grimstead, and Steve Wagner.

I appreciate the founder and editor of NewsWithViews.com. His website has grown to include a plethora of writers, not all of whom do I agree with, of course. But I know Paul Walter: in his core, he is a patriot. Tom DeWeese has been fighting Agenda 21 longer and more effectively than anyone I know. Christine Tobin over at “Fair And Equal” has done yeoman’s work for years to try and restore free and equal elections to America’s political process. Judge Andrew Napolitano has been a refreshing voice for individual liberty and constitutional government for years, as well. Dr. Tom Kendall stands extremely tall in the world of medicine, as does Dr. Curtis Caine, and the Flathead Valley’s very own Dr. Annie Bukacek.

In the field of law, I am very proud of the stand for freedom taken by my son, Tim. And attorneys Bill Olson and Herb Titus stand as pillars of their profession. And I also greatly admire other patriot-lawyers such as John Whitehead, Larry Klayman, Gene Garrison, Gary Kreep, Ed Vieira, and my dear friend, Danny Kepner.

And though not a majority, there are hundreds of patriot-sheriffs across the country who are relentless in their defense of the liberties of the people of their counties. I’m talking about sheriffs such as Shane Harrington, Joe Arpaio, Bruce Newman, John Hanlin, Gil Gilbertson, Denny Peyman, Larry Smith, and Richard Mack.

And patriots such as Scott Bradley, Sam Bushman, Larry Breazeale, Randy Brogdon, Joel Skousen, Alex Jones, LCDR Guy Cunningham, Aubyn Curtis, Coach Dave Daubenmire, author Thomas DiLorenzo, LCDR David Gillie, filmmaker James Jaeger, Brigadier General Charles Jones, Rick Jore, Roger Koopman, Gary Marbut, and Stewart Rhodes have been fighting the good fight for years. And, of course, Richard Viguerie has been our champion forever.

The numbers of patriots that we have lost over the past few years is too numerous to list. The hole in the freedom fight that they left is massive. God, please raise up freedom-loving Elishas to wear their mantles.

If my estimation is correct, and we still have that preserving-percentage of one in a thousand yet in this country, it means we have ­­­­­­325,000 patriots in America who have not bowed the knee to the New World Order and in whose hearts the love of liberty still beats strong. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an UNCONQUERABLE host.

To all of my fellow patriots: Kudos! Don’t quit! Stay strong! The battle is not over! Freedom still has a future in America!


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Are You Mad Yet?

December 21, 2014 by · 4 Comments 

In the poem, “The Masque of Pandora,” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow has Prometheus saying, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Accordingly, the would-be gods in the GOP leadership in Washington, D.C., must have rank-and-file Republicans slated for destruction, because they are MAD–and for good reason.

In an open letter, long-time Republican activist, Mike Scruggs, wrote, “I have been a Republican County Chairman in both North Carolina and Alabama. I have served countless hard-working hours as a volunteer for Republican candidates.  I am therefore deeply grieved that the Republican Party leadership in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate has seen fit to betray the principles and values of a substantial majority of Republican voters, and the majority of the American people. This last week witnessed both the House and Senate passing budget bills that essentially gave Obama’s unlawful amnesty for five million illegal immigrant workers an effective pass.

“The majorities that passed this essentially special interest budget may not be bothered by conscience, but American workers and taxpayers will suffer, lawlessness will abound, and public safety and national security undermined.  Our liberty and freedoms are being traded for gold in the form of huge special interest political campaign donations.

“What kind of party leadership do we have, when they refuse to defend the Constitution, and thus allow President Obama to get away with an unlawful amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrant workers?  

What kind of party leadership do we have, when they ignore the pain of over 18 million Americans who want a full time job and cannot find one? Yet GOP leaders continue to favor big business special interests that profit by flooding the labor market with foreign cheap labor, both legal and illegal. The wages of American workers have been stagnant for nearly 15 years, held down by an excess supply of foreign labor. The GOP leadership message to American workers is that the Republican Party is not concerned with them. Their message to grassroots conservatives is the same. The users of cheap foreign labor profit $437 billion a year, mostly at the expense of American workers–$402 billion annually, nearly $2,800 per year each for 147 million workers.

“According to the Heritage Foundation, the average unlawful immigrant household receives $14,387 more in government services and benefits paid than taxes paid. This will almost double with amnesty, because of more benefits. This is essentially a taxpayer subsidy to businesses using illegal immigrant labor. How long will we put up with this outrage for the benefit of big political donors. What kind of GOP leadership wants more of these injustices to American workers and taxpayers?

“Speaker of the House John Boehner did not give a pass to Obama’s amnesty and plans to double legal immigrant workers because he feared being blamed for a government shutdown. He wants amnesty so that establishment Republicans can continue to receive huge donations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other cheap labor lobbying associations.”

Hear! Hear, Mike!

In addition, the Tea Party Patriots released a summary of the “Cromnibus” Bill just passed. It states:

{{*The bill fully funds President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty;

*The bill contains $1.1 trillion dollars in spending;

*The bill gives every federal employee a raise. That means that even the IRS employees who colluded to target tea party conservatives will receive a raise;

*The bill contains numerous crony deals, built-in bailouts, and payoffs to Wall Street, and large corporations;

*The bill continues to fund Obamacare.

|Tea Party Patriots Press Release

}}

Just as I predicted in this column, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has not only done NOTHING to stop Obamacare and Amnesty, it has SOLIDIFIED both into law via legislative action.

In the House of Representatives, only seventeen Republican congressmen were needed to keep the bill from going to the floor for a vote. Guess how many voted “Nay”? SIXTEEN! Had only one more Republican voted “Nay”, the bill would have been dead.

Here is the list of your sixteen Republican heroes who voted “Nay,” in the U.S. House:

Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Dave Brat (Va.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Raúl Labrador (Idaho), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Bill Posey (Fla.), Matt Salmon (Ariz.) and Steve Stockman (Texas).

See The Hill report here:

High Drama As $1.1T Spending Package Advances By One Vote

No, my fellow Montanans, our illustrious “conservative” House member (and now U.S. Senator-elect), Steve Daines, is not on the list. He voted “Yea” to bring the bill to the floor for a vote and then voted “Nay” on final passage. Typical political flip-flopping to pass big-government spending bills while claiming to oppose them. GAG!

Had Steve Daines voted “Nay” on the first vote, the bill would have never made it to final passage. The excuse he (and the rest of the Republican congressmen who voted for the bill) will use is that they didn’t want to risk a government “shutdown.” Horse Manure! Everyone on the planet knew this bill would fund Obamacare and Amnesty. House leaders could have taken the funding for Obamacare, and especially Amnesty, out of the bill before bringing it to members for a vote had they wanted to. But the truth is, John Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership want Amnesty as much as Barack Obama and Harry Reid do. And congressmen like Steve Daines want to stay in the good graces of establishment leaders AND their conservative constituents back home. Hence, he played the Potomac Shuffle and voted FOR the bill when his vote could have killed it, then voted AGAINST the bill when he knew his “Nay” vote meant nothing.

No matter what you hear, folks, the ONLY Republican House members who truly voted AGAINST the Obamacare/Amnesty funding bill are the sixteen champions listed above.

ARE YOU MAD YET?

When will the U.S. electorate awaken to the fact that we do not have two parties in Washington, D.C.? And when will conservative Republicans awaken to the fact that their party in D.C. does NOT represent them–and has no intentions of representing them?

At the leadership level, both Democrats and Republicans represent big-money, globalist agendas. Neither party cares a hoot in hades about their constituents–much less liberty and constitutional government.

The toll that amnesty is going to take upon this republic will be horrific. No, more than that, it will forever change the future of our country. And it won’t take long.

Yes, I’m talking about the financial burden that will be placed on the backs of taxpayers at every level of government. I’m talking about escalating crime rates. I’m talking about federally-mandated expulsion of America’s historic Christian culture. I’m talking about rising unemployment for American citizens–especially African Americans. I’m talking about an exponential growth in the numbers of people who are increasingly dependent upon the government for subsistence. In fact, all of the above is ALREADY taking place at a rapid rate.

That African Americans will be among the hardest hit by the invasion of illegals is the dirty little secret that Democrat Party leaders are NOT telling their constituents. As the percentage of Hispanics mushrooms–due to Washington, D.C.’s amnesty provisions–the percentage of African Americans will shrink just as fast. Most experts agree that by 2040, Hispanics will be the majority race in this country. Thanks to the legalization of illegal immigration facilitated by both Democrats and Republicans in D.C., this is now inevitable. It may happen sooner.

But there is one more toll that the acceptance of illegal immigration will exact on this country: the breakup of the Continental United States. This is the toll hardly anyone wants to think about, much less talk about. But, it, too, is inevitable.

Virtually everyone south of the border (and in most American university classrooms) believes that the southwestern United States rightfully belongs to Mexico. Accordingly, the animosity and hatred against America runs very, very deep. If anyone truly believes that the influx of untold millions of Hispanics will NOT eventually lead to attempted secession, they are living in a dream world.

Can one imagine what will happen in the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, when the Hispanic population outnumbers all others by significant percentages? For that matter, all of the southern states, including states as far north as Tennessee, are going to be in the crosshairs of La Raza-type “Reconquista.” For example, the State of Tennessee already is one of the southern states that is a favorite landing place for illegals. Just imagine how amnesty will affect states such as Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida?

Count on it: “The-Southern-United-States-Belongs-To-Us” crowd will demand and implement some sort of secession as quickly as possible. I have been saying for years that some sort of secession within the United States is inevitable.  The far-left hate group, the SPLC, and other big-government control freaks, love to claim that it is “right-wing Christian extremists” who are the ones pushing for secession. But, in the end, it will doubtless be the third-world recipients of U.S. amnesty that will be the catalyst.

One does not have to think real far off to imagine what would happen to the rest of the Continental United States should an Hispanic secession movement take shape in earnest. According to recent surveys, nearly one-fourth of the U.S. citizenry already think favorably of secession.

See this report:

Poll: Nearly 1 In 4 Americans Would Favor Secession

And this report summarizes secession sentiments by regions:

These Are The Regions Where Americans Are Most Likely To Favor Secession

In any kind of breakup, big-government toadies in Washington, D.C., (from BOTH major parties) would doubtless attempt to suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights (especially the Second Amendment) in much the same way Abraham Lincoln did during the War Between the States. And, for the life of me, I cannot imagine the Rocky Mountain States (for one region) submitting to such tyranny. Let your own imagination run wild from there.

Do Big-Government toadies such as John Boehner and Harry Reid envision a Hispanic secession movement as the result of amnesty? Probably not. I doubt seriously they have that much foresight. Reid and his fellow Democrats are thinking about votes, while Boehner and his fellow Chamber of Commerce Republicans are thinking about cheap labor. And, of course, all of them are thinking about pleasing their big-money masters. However, that blanket amnesty will eventually lead to a Hispanic secession movement is inevitable. Mark my words: it is inevitable. Whether those of us over fifty live to see it is irrelevant; it is inevitable.

Remember the words of Prometheus, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” ARE YOU MAD YET?

Instead of waiting for an ugly Hispanic-driven secession movement, liberty-lovers within the GOP should get mad enough NOW and secede from the Republican Party, and join the millions of independents who got mad and left years ago. Even GOP-apologist Mark Levin said recently he is “inches” away from leaving the GOP.

The two-party duopoly is strangling the life and liberty out of America. If this latest betrayal by Republicans is not enough to make freedom-loving Americans realize that the “gods” in D.C., are targeting them for destruction, I doubt anything will.

SO, ARE YOU MAD YET?


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

It’s Not Over

December 7, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

That America is spiraling on a collision course with calamity seems certain. We seem to be ignoring virtually all of the lessons of history, and, well, you know what one fellow said about the folly of doing that. I join the consensus of patriots and freedom-lovers throughout the country who believe America’s future is filled with all sorts of stormy weather. As a matter of fact, the storms are all around us already.

For one thing, most of the people who should be helping us in the freedom fight cannot see past the end of their ballot. They think, as long as they elect “conservatives” to public office, all is well with the world. And since the GOP now controls both houses of Congress in Washington, D.C., the vast majority of our good brothers and sisters are already all tucked in for extended hibernation. They will reemerge from under their blankets about three months before the general election in 2016 and start screaming their support for whomever the neocon candidate happens to be. Why, they are already ignoring the fact that the precious Republicans they just elected to the House and Senate a few weeks ago are already signaling that they will to do NOTHING to thwart Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, which was the single most defining issue that helped give the Congress to the GOP. Republicans on Capitol Hill are famous for doing NOTHING to fulfill the promises they made on the campaign trail to their constituents. And Republican voters are famous for reelecting them anyway. Good grief! Republicans in South Carolina can’t even get rid of Lindsey Graham; and Republicans in Arizona can’t even get rid of John McCain.

Even the great Republican “conservative,” Mitt Romney, is now on record saying that the GOP should “swallow hard” and pass a PERMANENT amnesty bill. And even though he says he is not running for President in two years, he continues to be the frontrunner in most of the GOP preference polls. What does that tell you?

See the report here:

Mitt Romney: Republicans Should ‘Swallow Hard’ And Pass ‘Permanent’ Amnesty Bill

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann had the guts to tell the truth about what the GOP plans to do regarding Obama’s blatantly illegal executive amnesty decision. Bachmann told Breitbart.com that House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership have “no intention” of resisting Obama’s executive amnesty. And she is right.

See the report here:

‘We Will Not Engage’: Michele Bachmann Reveals GOP Plans To Ignore Executive Amnesty

Staunch anti-amnesty senator, Jeff Sessions, said this past Tuesday that the GOP House was about to break their 2014 campaign promises to stop Obama’s executive amnesty. Also on Tuesday, Breitbart.com reported that House Speaker Boehner appears ready to deal with Democrats in order to cut a deal to SAVE amnesty. See the report here:

Boehner Poised To Deal With The Devil To Avoid Shut-Down?

Oh, we can expect Boehner and Company to blow a lot of smoke and pass some frivolous and toothless legislation or resolutions that will be designed to placate a gullible and naïve Republican constituency, but that will do absolutely NOTHING to stop Obama’s amnesty. The only thing John Boehner and his ilk in Congress don’t like is Obama beat them to the punch by issuing executive amnesty to illegals. GOP leaders were hoping to pass legislative amnesty. So, now that Obama has beaten them to the punch, Boehner and his fellow establishment Republicans will quickly fall in line.

But what the U.S. House of Representatives ought to do (if they had any guts, which they don’t) is impeach this President for his executive amnesty.

Barack Obama’s executive amnesty is the worst kind of abuse of power and illegal conduct. The President of the United States is charged with “executing” the laws of our country. He has no lawful authority to set those laws aside with an Executive Order, which is exactly what he did. Compared to the crimes of Barack Obama, the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton look pale. Then again, compared to the Congress of 1994, this Congress looks pale.

The effect of our government’s refusal to respect our nation’s borders and laws over the next several years will be devastating consequences to the very fiber and fabric of this once great republic. The toll on State and local budgets, education quality, crime rates, employment opportunities, and quality of life will be incalculable. And this is just one menace that the miscreants in Washington, D.C., are inflicting upon us.

For much of the Twentieth Century (and now into the Twenty-First Century), Americans repeatedly choose to elect irresponsible, power-hungry, egotistical, self-centered sycophants (from both major parties) to public office. In addition, most of our churches are little more than glorified social clubs, entertainment centers, playgrounds, and government corporations. Our major media, in both the national and most local markets, are largely government propaganda outlets–as are most of our educational institutions. Furthermore, Christians and unbelievers, pastors of all stripes, Republicans and Democrats, and conservatives and liberals alike, are sitting back passively and indifferently as our country is being turned into a humongous Police State. Absent a significant shift in the hearts and minds of the American people, our liberties cannot long endure.

However, with all of the above said, I still refuse to join the ranks of Chicken Little.

For some reason, known only to God, we still have a semblance of freedom in this land. Granted, it’s only a semblance, but the curtain has not yet fully fallen on liberty. God knows we don’t deserve even the semblance of freedom that we still enjoy. Over the last sixty-plus years, we have been doing our best to throw America into the garbage heap of history. But, for some reason, the curtain has not yet fallen completely.

I would like to proffer five suggestions as to why the curtain has not yet fallen on liberty.

1. I believe God is still honoring the faith, courage, commitment, and sacrifice of America’s Founding Fathers. If God would bless Old Testament Israel for the sake of Abraham, Moses, and David, I believe He would bless the United States for the sake of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams.

From the days of the Pilgrims through the days of the Patriots, several generations of men and women were willing to pay, many times, a horrific price for liberty. There is no doubt in my mind that these modern generations of Americans are still clipping the coupons from the extraordinary faith and courage of our forebears.

2. More than one hundred million American citizens possess over three hundred million firearms. And a good percentage of these people not only possess a gun; they possess the mental, emotional, and spiritual resolve to use those weapons against any government that would seek to take them. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the deeply-rooted heritage of the American people to keep and bear arms has been largely responsible for the preservation of whatever liberties we have left. Without a heavily-armed populace within this country, there is absolutely no doubt that America (and the rest of the “free world”) would have been totally enslaved decades ago.

3. The Internet. For all of the baloney, malarkey, and rubbish that can be found on the Internet, there is absolutely no question that the Internet has very successfully circumvented and shattered the monopoly of the government shills of the mainstream media. For all intents and purposes, the Internet is to America today what the “Committees of Correspondence” were to Colonial America.

Many are even predicting that the major television news networks will be out of business within the next couple or three decades–as will many of America’s newspapers. CNN was once a cable dynasty; now it is barely broadcasting. MSNBC’s ratings are so poor that its days are also numbered. And while FOX NEWS is currently enjoying the zenith of its existence, more people are getting their news and newsworthy information from the Internet than from all of the above combined. For all of its negatives, the Internet is a huge net positive for freedom.

4. There is still a host, and I mean a huge host, of liberty-loving people in this country who have not (and will never) accept the shackles of tyranny around their hearts. Big-Government toadies can impugn them all they want, but people such as Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senator Mike Lee, Congressman Justin Amash, and millions like them, are keeping the torch of liberty burning.

The media would have us believe that old-fashioned, red-blooded freedomists have gone the way of the Brontosaurus. Or, that if any do yet exist, their numbers are so small as to be placed on the list of endangered species. Don’t you believe it!

In every occupation and vocation–including in our U.S. military and federal police agencies–in virtually every village and hamlet dotted across the fruited plain, and in every age bracket, reside innumerable freedom-loving Americans in whose hearts the love of liberty reigns. Before the chains of tyranny can be placed around a person’s neck, they must first be placed around their hearts. And the people I’m talking about will NEVER allow those chains to be placed around their hearts.

5. I believe the curtain has not completely dropped on liberty in this country because of the grace and sovereignty of our Creator-God. Thomas Jefferson (himself an unbeliever in the traditional sense) was exactly right when he said that liberty is the gift of God. That we still enjoy a semblance of freedom in this land indicates that His divine protection still rests upon us.

Those of us who have a Christian perspective realize that Holy Writ tells us: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13) This means that the deeply-seeded love of liberty in our hearts was planted there by our Creator. Our WILL for liberty is God-breathed. That fact, by itself, demonstrates that it’s not over.

There is a line from the 2012 version of the movie “Red Dawn” that I really love. A U.S. Marine fighting with the “Wolverines,” said, “I’m still breathing, so, it’s not over.” Indeed. You and are still breathing, folks, so, IT’S NOT OVER.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Globalism Free Trade Immigration Connection

November 21, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

How is your life going under the Global Empire? If you answer honestly, for non billionaires, the response must reflect disappointment if not immense distress. Middle America stands on the precipice of oblivion. While the recent past decades have shown steep declines in financial security and net wealth, the future looks much more ominous. The link between the shift to an internationalist de-industrialization economy and open border immigration has hit the United States hard. This harsh reality is routinely denied in the financial press, but the social chaos that engulfs society is largely caused by this betrayal mindset. Corporatists are waging war against the American public.

Summing up the battle lines is the quintessential voice of an America First philosophy. Pat Buchanan on Free Trade is a collection of quotations and references that should be a must read for every displaced citizen. And that group includes virtually everyone.

“Good for global business” isn’t necessarily good for US

“Global capitalists have become acolytes of global governance. They wish to see national sovereignty diminished and sanctions abolished. Where yesterday American businesses suffered damage to their good name for selling scrap iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, today [war materiel is routinely exported] to potentially hostile nations. Once it was true that what was good the Fortune 500 was good for America. That is no longer true, and what is good for America must take precedence.”

Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.349 , Oct 9, 1999

The most puzzling malady that penetrates the “PC” culture is a fear of confronting the direct consequences of encouraging an invasion of illegal’s into the country. The disconnect that sweeps across national borders is not isolated just to the United States. Western Europe is not only in decay but is on the verge of social and economic collapse.

Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, wrote in his Sep. 2005 Migration Policy Institute essay “The Global Struggle with Illegal Migration: No End in Sight”: How Are Illegal Immigration and Globalization Related?

“For nearly two decades now, capital and the market for goods, services, and workers of many types have weaved an ever more intricate web of global economic and social interdependence… No aspect of this interdependence seems to be more visible to the public of advanced industrial societies than the movement of people. And no part of that movement is proving pricklier to manage effectively, or more difficult for publics to come to terms with, than irregular (also known as unauthorized, undocumented, or illegal) migration…”

Dr. Papademetriou’s assumption that interdependency is the new normal may be supported with the procession of the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order”. Nonetheless, the destruction of national sovereignty is a price that no country can afford to adopt, much less pay and remain a nation. Interdependency is the death knell of traditional values, autonomous commerce and individual civil liberties. With the ringing of the bell at the NY Stock exchange, the sound of prosperity goes deaf for the populist, while globalist elites extract the last pound of flesh from an intentionally designed consolidation of a Corporatocracy economy.

The fate of the world is at stake if the forces of globalization are left to complete their total domination of monetary and financial control. It is just as important to prevent the next bipartisan arrangement to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegal foreigners, who have shown little interest to assimilate or adopt the heritage and values of our founding principles.

Warren Mass wrote over a year ago in Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border.

“An important part of regulating legal immigration, in addition to evaluating each prospective immigrant’s ability to become a productive, law-abiding citizen, is to determine how many immigrants the United States is capable of absorbing each year, taking into consideration the impact on our nation’s economy and culture.”

If this standard needs to apply to those who apply for citizenship, by what absurd twist of logic or sanity pertains to President Obama’s intentions of issuing executive orders that are clearly unconstitutional? How insulting it is to hard press citizens, relegated to enduring impoverishment from off shoring livable wage jobs, while awarding effective amnesty to illegals.

Columnist Glenn R. Jackson review of author Kenneth Buchdahl’s book, Dismantling The American Dream: Globalization, Free Trade, immigration, Unemployment, Poverty, Debt, Foreign Dependency hits the mark.

“First and foremost it is good to see the recognition by Buchdahl of American culture as   critical to the building of the American Dream.  As Buchdahl writes the development of a culture is grounded in a unique American personality and intricate system of values and beliefs that is responsible for America’s enviable situation.  And it is that enviable situation that has contributed to creating the forces that are working rapidly, knowingly or not, to dismantle the American Dream.

Dismantling the American Dream chronicles the unintended impact of America’s pop culture belief in globalization as a force for good in our economy and the failure of leadership to recognize that belief gone awry.  America’s political leaders continued belief in free trade and give-away trade deals, in the face of the near deathblow of NAFTA to American manufacturing is but one of the delusions of globalization that Buchdahl lays bare.”

The interjection of cultural aspects may well be the missing link that escapes most chronicles on current events. Documenting the actual results from Free Trade Treaties, should in and of itself win the intellectual argument that economic destruction of Middle America has already happened. Add in the deliberate call for mass migration and social incentives to cross the border has created the latest flood in undocumented aliens.

When Democracy Now asks, Obama & McConnell Pledge Cooperation; Will Fast-Tracking Secretive TPP Trade Deal Top Their Agenda?, and presents Ralph Nader on TPP and the “Unstoppable” Left-Right Anti-Corporate Movement, one has hope that the Buchanan Brigades message is being heard.

With the celebrity coronation that the Democrats are showering on their new favorite daughter, the “Pocahontas Princess”, Elizabeth Warren’s Crusade Against Disastrous “Free Trade” Agreements, is welcomed.

An inquiry was made to NY Senator Charles E. Schumer on the TPA, Trade Priorities Act of 2014 (S.1900). His reply can be read on this link.

An alliance among anti-free trade factions from all ideological camps is necessary to stop the globalist juggernaut. Even if such a coalition could be grown, the likelihood that linkage to the need to stop illegal immigration and opposition to amnesty, would be frosty.

This brings up the opportunity to interject the appeal, WE MUST NOT SURRENDER TO IMMIGRATION AMNESTY, by Frosty Wooldridge. ““Why would any member of Congress who opposes executive amnesty provide President Obama the funds to carry it out? A Republican majority must force congressional Democrats to answer this question through their votes”.

Likewise, why would as covered in the New American essay, Republicans to Obama: We Will Give You Trade Promotion Authority, patriots want to grant “fast track” authority to a President, who is defiant to congressional constitutional separation of powers?

“Fast track authority eventually expired on April 16, 1994, and was not reauthorized by Congress until the passage of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (BPTAA) of 2002. BPTAA reinstated fast track authority renamed as “trade promotion authority” (TPA), which expired in 2007. In 2012, President Obama requested renewal of TPA/fast track authority to complete negotiations for the TPP and TTIP.”

The answer should be apparent that any support of “fast track” or for TPP is a vote bought with globalist control. If it is so obvious that such influence is at play in trade deals, why are so many confused activists not able to see through the “Open Border” fraud and act upon the best interests for American workers and families?

That taboo culture factor, covered in the Buchdahl book explains the blind spot from the Loony Left. A review of a pro immigration site, Open Borders will demonstrate a systemic disconnect from reality. Often Libertarian purists, also fall under the spell of a transcendental fantasy. To their credit, Open Borders presents the concept of CITIZENISM and provides the following its key features.

Citizenism places substantially greater weight on the rights and interests of citizens than non-citizens, though it operates within moral side-constraints.

Citizenism is about current citizens, not about the people who may become citizens as a result of immigration or deportation policy.

Citizenism, as conceived by its original proponent Sailer, is both about the individual ethics of voters and about the responsibilities of elected representatives.

Citizenism is about loyalty, not admiration, toward one’s fellow citizens.

If you understand the destructive nature of corporatist trade agreements that only benefit transnational conglomerates, while poisoning economic commerce for Middle Americans, why would you not oppose the lunacy of unrestrictive mass migration? The imperative moral directive is to protect and defend your own nation, its traditional culture and responsible citizens.

Saving the world is a concept that resides in the sick minds of the Save the Planet Kill Yourself mindset. If they are so devoted to a globalist utopia, the influx of trespassers must be leaving their own homeland in better shape. Just how well is life south of the border doing?


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

What’s Going On With Our Police?

November 14, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

What’s going on with our police? More and more, it seems that our men in blue have been transformed from a friendly neighborhood peace office, whose mission is to protect and serve, to a hostile military force, whose mission is to harass and intimidate.

I am going to broach a subject in this syndicated column this week that people such as me are not supposed to talk about. By people such as me, I mean Christians, “conservatives,” Republican-types, etc. “We” are NEVER supposed to criticize the police–not in any shape, manner, or form. ANY criticism of all things police (and military, for that matter) is immediately deemed to be “left-wing,” “unpatriotic,” etc. To criticize the police in any way brings immediate and vehement accusations that one is against law and order or is a “bleeding heart liberal,” etc. But, in all probability, the vast majority of “our” folks will simply ignore this column. My observation is “WE” are mostly very closed-minded and don’t tolerate ideas that are outside the box of what is heard on FOX NEWS or from today’s milquetoast preachers.

However, it is an absolute fact that today’s law enforcement agencies are more and more being militarized and are becoming more and more hostile to the American citizenry. More and more, police officers view the American people as “enemy combatants” and are developing a deeply imbedded “us versus them” mindset. More and more, police officers are behaving like soldiers, not peace officers. Examples of police abuse are becoming more and more frequent and more and more severe. If this breach of the public trust is not reined in soon, it is going to get very ugly in this country.

When I grew up, we were all taught that policemen were our friends and that we could always trust them. Hardly anyone teaches that to their children anymore–and for good reason. Too many policemen have abused and misused the trust that the American people have placed in them. I’m sorry if you don’t like to hear that–I don’t enjoy saying that–but it is the honest truth.

More and more often, routine traffic stops quickly escalate into full-fledged police abuse over the most innocent conduct. Too many police officers today have developed an “I-have-a-badge-and-a-gun-and-therefore-I-can-do-anything-I-want” attitude. More and more police officers seem to feel that the law they are sworn to enforce is whatever they determine the law to be. More and more often, bringing up constitutional rights to a police officer today or merely questioning what a police officer is doing often invites physical beating, incarceration, or even death. This is especially true if one attempts to film a police officer.

One does not have to search long to find limitless examples of what I am talking about.

In the State of New York, a police sergeant is under investigation for slapping around a law-abiding young man simply because he asked the officer why he was demanding to search his vehicle. After the young man questioned the sergeant, who is a 27-year veteran of the police force, the officer slapped the man and yelled that he could “rip your f****** head off and s*** down your neck.” The only reason an internal investigation is going on is because another passenger video-recorded the event.

See the report:

Cop Suspended After He Was Caught On Camera Brutally Slapping Driver Who Asked Why He Needed To Search His Car

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a police officer threatened to “beat the s***” out of a young man for simply looking at him. That’s right. All the young man did was look at him as he walked down the street.

In Miami, Florida, a police officer went ballistic with rage after a young man, whom he had just given a traffic ticket to, said, “God bless you.” That simple remark set off a profanity-laced tirade from the officer in which he took out his handcuffs and threatened to put the young man in jail.

See the report:

Cop Goes Nuts When Told “God Bless You”

In East Dublin, Georgia, drug task force police officers gunned down an innocent grandfather in his own home on the word of a self-confessed meth addict. Police executed a no-knock invasion of the home and killed the innocent 59-year-old businessman who had armed himself to protect his family from what he could only determine were armed home invaders. The resident was killed in a hail of gunfire by police. He was completely innocent of any drug offenses. Police acted as judge, jury, and executioner of the poor man.

See the report:

Police Kill Georgia Grandfather During No-Knock Raid On Wrong Home

In Boynton Beach, Florida, two young men were pulled over by police in a traffic stop. One of the young men began to video-record the officers. Quickly, the policemen became enraged and began physically assaulting the young men. One officer pointed his pistol at the boys and threatened to immediately shoot them. At no point did the young men display a weapon or physically assault the officers. Granted, the young men acted rudely and disrespectfully. But since when in America is cockiness and rudeness a potential death sentence?

But the worst part of the story came afterward when the chief of police issued a statement defending the conduct of the officers. Chief Jeffrey Katz viewed the video tape (recorded by a passenger in the car) and said the following: “When I watch this video, I don’t see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with FEAR OF THE POLICE.” (Emphasis added)

See the report here:

‘I’ll Put A Round In Your A** So Quick’: Florida Police Chief Defends Cop Who Threatened To Shoot Young Black Man Because He Filmed His Partner Throwing Him On The Ground

Did you get that? The police chief and his officers were angry that the young men didn’t FEAR the police enough.

So, that’s it. We are supposed to FEAR the police. Really? Then, pray tell, who are the police supposed to fear? My father didn’t teach me to fear the police. He taught me to respect the police. And he taught me that the police were my friends. He did not teach me that I had to fear for my rights and my very life every time I’m pulled over for a traffic stop. And that’s not the way that Sheriff Cliff Arnold’s deputies behaved while I was growing up.

And, again in the State of Georgia, Henry County Police forced a small group of fifth graders to the ground at gunpoint as they attempted to build a tree fort in their neighborhood. Can you imagine? Throwing 11-year-old children to the ground and putting a gun to their heads for building a tree fort? This is reality in modern America’s burgeoning Police State.

See the report here:

Cop Pulls Gun On Fifth Graders Building Tree Fort

These kinds of reports are virtually endless.

Am I suggesting that all sheriff’s deputies and police officers behave in such fashion? Of course not! I am confident that the vast majority of our men and women in blue (and brown for sheriff’s deputies) are honest, law-abiding people who are doing their best to keep the peace and who respect the rights of the citizens they are charged to serve. But I am saying that the training procedures and mindset of our police agencies nationwide IS quickly developing into a police-state mentality. And the everyday occurrences such as those listed above absolutely prove my assertion. It is also an undeniable fact that more and more police training omits teaching the Constitution and, accordingly, more and more police officers are truly ignorant of the rights and liberties of the American people under the U.S. Constitution.

Based on current statistical data, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than we are an actual terrorist. Since 2001, over 5,000 American citizens have been killed by policemen. How many of these deaths were truly justified we will never know as police departments and courts of law have a proven track record of hardly ever charging an officer with wrongful death.

Add to the above the fact that even many minor incidents will often result in SWAT teams being deployed. In fact, Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska documents research showing, “There has been more than a 1,400% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or callouts, between 1980 and 2000. Today, an estimated 45,000 SWAT-team deployments are conducted yearly among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s there was an average of about 3,000.”

See Kraska’s report here:

Militarization And Policing–It’s Relevance To 21st Century

Has violent crime increased 1,400 percent during that time? Not at all. In fact, for the last several years, violent crime has been decreasing to the point that currently it is at record lows. So, how can the need for SWAT teams increase by 1,400 percent? It is the result of Washington, D.C., deliberately militarizing our police agencies.

I am convinced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is intentionally turning our State and local police agencies against us. Washington, D.C., is deliberately militarizing our police agencies. Give them military equipment, weapons, training, etc., and they will start acting like soldiers, not policemen. And that is exactly what is happening.

The phrase that we hear constantly repeated today by law enforcement personnel and spokesmen is “the safety of the officer.” But wait a minute! The sworn duty of a police officer is to obey the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), which is designed to protect the rights, liberties, and safely of the American people. The role of the police officer is to protect the safety of the public. Any man or woman who volunteers to put on a badge should be consciously willing to put his or her life on the line to protect the public. That’s what their job is all about. And no one forces them to take this risk; they take it of their own volition.

Of course the men and women of law enforcement want to go home at the end of their shift. But so do the people of their community. Policemen are not the only ones who face hostility and threats of violence. I have had my life threatened too many times to count. I have even been shot at. (I would venture to say that the vast majority of police officers in the country have never actually been shot at.) I have had my family threatened. And none of us wear Kevlar vests and helmets and can call backup with the push of a button (calling 911 is not the same as a policeman calling for back up–not even close).

If the safety of the officer is the primary duty of policemen, they should just shoot suspects on sight and eliminate the threat before it exists. And that is pretty much what they do in totalitarian countries. But this is America where the rule of law and the rights of the individual reign supreme. In a free country, people are judged to be innocent until proven guilty. Plus, the only lawful reason a police officer has to fire his weapon at someone is for the same reason that the rest of us can do so: for self-defense against an imminent threat to their (our) lives.

Again, the impetus of the militarization of police is coming directly from DHS. In addition to receiving military equipment, hardware, attack helicopters, tanks, etc., from the DOD and DHS, more and more often U.S. military Special Forces troops are being employed to train our local police personnel. To the miscreants inside the Beltway, the American people are seen as the real terrorists, not foreign enemies or the criminal gang members that are pouring across our southern border. In truth, DHS is using our local police agencies in much the same way that the Nazi government used the local police agencies inside the occupied countries of Europe. And, unfortunately, it seems that most of our Christians, “conservatives,” and Republican-types are completely oblivious to the problem.

I applaud the numerous constitutionalist sheriffs around the country who are doing their best to maintain constitutional government within their counties and who are courageously resisting the efforts of DHS to turn their deputies into Storm Troopers. I just wish we had a lot more of these stalwart defenders of liberty. The American people are not doing a very good job of electing these kinds of patriots to public office, including the sheriff’s office. But on the whole, our sheriff’s offices around the country are far less oppressive than their counterparts in city police departments. The obvious reason for this is due to the fact that, while the sheriff is a constitutionally elective office, our chiefs of police are usually appointed by some sort of city council and are not answerable directly to the public. Bureaucrats are seldom known for any kind of allegiance to constitutional government.

And, again, this column is not an indictment against any of our law-abiding, liberty-loving, policemen and sheriff’s deputies. And I suggest that any policeman who would take umbrage at this column is subconsciously incriminating him or herself. Of all people, police officers, themselves, should be the most angry when their fellow officers betray the public trust and violate fundamental rights. A bad cop reflects badly on good cops. Therefore, instead of reacting angrily against a column such as this, it should behoove honest policemen to lead the charge against this kind of unlawful conduct being committed by their brethren in blue. They should also be the ones to most doggedly resist the militarization of their agencies by DHS.

However, this column IS an indictment against the current trend within law enforcement to become increasingly federalized, militarized, and Gestapo-like. I suppose it is also an indictment against the American people (including Christians, “conservatives,” and Republican-types) who seem to be blind and apathetic to what is becoming a major problem within our country.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Court Protects IRS Tyranny

November 2, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

The names Catherine Engelbrecht and Reggie B. Walton may not exactly be household names, but both are part of a disturbing court ruling that can only be described as a reprehensible government protection racket in plain sight for all to see. Ms. Engelbrecht was the plaintiff and Reggie B. Walton the judge. A succinct summary is provided by Breitbart in the report, True the Vote’s Lawsuit against IRS Gets Tossed by Federal Judge.

“A federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order dismissing a lawsuit filed by True the Vote, a Houston, Texas-based non-profit organization focused on “voters’ rights and election integrity” against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The order alleged that the IRS had improperly delayed granting their application for 501(c)(3) status and targeted them as a conservative organization. The opinion, by Judge Reggie B. Walton, found that the IRS had taken sufficient “remedial steps to address the alleged behavior.”

From the ruling by Judge Walton, analysis:

“The defendants contend that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over counts one, two, and five of the plaintiff’s complaint because the IRS ultimately approved the plaintiff’s application for tax-exempt status, and thus counts one, two, and five—all of which seek “to correct [the] alleged targeting [of the IRS] and delay during its application process” for tax-exempt status—are now moot as there is no longer any case or controversy for the Court to resolve.”

How nice that the IRS can slip out of a sticky wicket by simply retroactively approving a 501(c)(3) application that they officiated with a touch of harassment and a sprinkle of intimidation. The reasoning used by Judge Walton to protect the IRS from a “voluntary cessation” exception follows:

“The rationale supporting the defendant’s voluntary cessation as an exception to mootness is that, while the defendant’s unilateral cessation of the challenged conduct may grant the plaintiff relief, the defendant is free to return to its old ways—thereby subjecting the plaintiff to the same harm but, at the same time, avoiding judicial review. Accordingly, a case can be mooted by virtue of the defendant’s cessation of its allegedly illegal conduct only if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”

Oh praise the sacred high priests of the Internal Revenue Service for “seeing the light” and repenting their ways. Such a reasonable trust in the good intentions of the IRS to not only follow the law but to administer their trade under the “good faith” doctrine that only a judge working for the same corrupt government as do the Lois Lerner brigade of bureaucrats, would profess.

An important USA Today article, from hardly an anti government publication, IRS list reveals concerns over Tea Party ‘propaganda’, furnishes the evidence.

“Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about “anti-Obama rhetoric,” inflammatory language and “emotional” statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.

The internal 2011 documents, obtained by USA TODAY, list 162 groups by name, with comments by Internal Revenue Service lawyers in Washington raising issues about their political, lobbying and advocacy activities. In 21 cases, those activities were characterized as “propaganda.”

The list provides the most specific public accounting to date of which groups were targeted for extra scrutiny and why. The IRS has not publicly identified the groups, repeatedly citing a provision of the tax code prohibiting it from releasing tax return information.”

The supporting items Document: IRS ‘political advocacy cases’ list, while the pattern of selective favoritism is authenticated in the report, IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo.

For a more cutting edge analysis from  Twitchy US politics on the insanity from the Loony Left, just absorb the rhetoric and ask, who the real totalitarians are in society and even worse in government. Outrage: Court acknowledges that IRS targeted True the Vote, dismisses lawsuit anyway explains.

“Voters’ rights group True the Vote , a nonprofit “founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process,” has had a hard time of it. As the 2012 election approached, Cher of all people referred to True the Vote as “a bunch of Tea Party Nazis” and “animals.” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, informed True the Vote founder and president Catherine Engelbrecht that he would be launching an investigation into her organization.

Of course, all of this was happening while the IRS was targeting conservative groups and holding up applications for nonprofit status, often through several election cycles. And even though the U.S. Federal District Court didn’t deny this, True the Vote’s case against the IRS was dismissed today.”

Engelbrecht issued the following brief statement:

“The Court today correctly acknowledged that the IRS targeted True the Vote because of its perceived political beliefs. Such conduct is reprehensible and should never be acceptable in a free society. Despite this critical finding, we are stunned and disappointed in the court’s ruling which nevertheless dismisses our case. We will be evaluating our legal options and will announce our intent in that regard soon.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots reaction to the DC Court Decision on IRS “Unconscionable”. “The Court’s decision not to sanction either the IRS or the individual agents because it and they had taken “remedial measures” is unconscionable.”

Supporting this conclusion are Top 9 Quotes on the IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups.

  1. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.” – President Barack Obama to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly February, 2014
  2. “Decline to answer that question.” – Lois Lerner, pleading the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, March 5, 2014
  3. “The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.” – Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Audit
  4. “Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They [Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio] used names like ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriots’ and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” – Lois Lerner
  5. “Even after admitting that it had targeted groups, and a TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] report detailed the abuses, the IRS did not let up. In August 2013, the IRS requested yet more documents and information. It asked us to provide, for example, all fundraising communications for the 60 days before the November 6, 2012 election, and all materials that we used in various “Get Out the Vote” activities. That request made no sense under the current standards for evaluating non-profit applications. The regulations proposed three months later, however, explain the requests, as they include specific provisions classifying any mention of a candidate’s name within 60 days of an election and get-out-the-vote efforts as taxable political activity.” – Jenny Beth Martin in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, February 27, 2014
  6. “The Internal Revenue Service says acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller was first informed in May 2012 that tea party groups were inappropriately targeted for scrutiny.” – Hot Air, May 13, 2013
  7. “The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups – a finding that seems to confirm political bias was at play.” – The Washington Times, June 27, 2013
  8. When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.” – The Chicago Sun-Times, February 10, 2014
  9. More than 400,000 documents have been turned over to Congress, only a fraction of which have been publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act. Republicans say they’re still missing key documents including the e-mails of former IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner. – USA Today, February 26, 2014

But remember, President Obama assures us there’s “not a smidgen of corruption!”

No matter your political leanings, every American should be concerned when the courts condone abusive and arbitrary administration in any agency. Allowing the IRS to retroactively cover their rear, while turning a blind eye to systemic illicit practices, is just part of the game plan that permits the court to make up law, which favors government tyranny.

The True the Vote decision is insulting and only goes to prove that reforms through the election process are truly the moot option.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

The Elite Television Anchor: Center of The Psyop

August 9, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

“In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” (George Burns)

Reality is a psychological operation.

Socio-political reality basically means some group has force, money, and access to fawning media. They can define what exists.

A psyop depends on being able to engineer one story line.

A psyop depends on selling one centralized story.

If, magically, overnight, you found yourself in possession of overwhelming force and a direct pipeline to elite media anchors, you could tell your story about what exists, and you would find millions of people believing you.

What would happen if the three major networks, each with considerable power, had come up with three vastly different versions of the Boston massacre?

CBS: “FBI and local police killed one terrorist and captured the other in what observers are calling one of the bravest days in the history of law enforcement in America.”

NBC: “After a violent gun battle on the streets of a great American city, during which a suspect in the Boston massacre was killed, an FBI source stunningly revealed the Bureau had shifted the blame on to their own cooperating informants. The source put it this way: ‘The Tsarnaev brothers were recruited by a secret Bureau unit to plant the bombs. The plan was to blame the bombing on so-called patriots, but that fell through, so the Bureau exercised their only option. They put their own informants front and center and called them terrorists…’”

ABC: “Today, the tragic loss of life and wounding of more than 180 persons at the Boston Marathon were partially redeemed, when, amazingly, Boston police traced three pipe bombs to a CIA storage locker in Maryland…”

Suppose, in the midst of an uproar heard and echoed around the world, the networks stood by their contradictory versions of events and wouldn’t back down?

A massive blow would hit psyop-land. Centralized story? Poleaxed.

People wouldn’t know what to do. They expect one story line and they get three, from the highest hypnotic and influential media giants.

In a literal, though unconscious, sense, familiar time and space begin to fall apart.

But actually, it’s far more surreal for the three major television networks to agree on the substance of every significant event than to come to radically different conclusions.

Unfortunately, people don’t see it that way. They don’t see that three behemoths dispensing the same information are key elements in thought-police fascism. They don’t see that the consensus is arranged.

“Bargain price! We’ll shave down your perceptual field so you can fit in with eight billion androids. You’ll never miss what you can’t see. On a scale from 0 to 10, your creative impulse will be coming in at about .06. That’ll cement you right into the limited spectrum, where all the action is. Yes, folks, there really is a sense of family in this reality. People liking people. We’re all in this together. Remember, life is better when you see what we want you to see! It takes the pressure off. Do you really care about what you think? Don’t you want to be fixed, so you can think what everybody else thinks? Now that’s a real program. Once we lock you in and reshuffle your electromagnetic fields, you’ll emerge with our new Sameness system. You’ll see what your friends see with just a bit of difference, to make it interesting…”

In a country in which art has little or no perceived value, there’s a sucker born every millisecond. Why? Because when consciousness of art is nil, people accept official art, which is always present, as the guiding and only reality. And of course, they don’t see it as art.

“Things can’t be any other way. This is it.”

Nowhere is this truer than in television news.

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, the audience can remain content in its own related role: watching the actor.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

Night after night, the anchor, working from a long tradition, confirms that he is delivering the news as it should be delivered, in both style and substance. The audience bows before the tradition and before him.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, that means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?” And the public buys it.

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it’s Brian Williams.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news. When Diane Sawyer goes too far and begins dribbling (alcohol? tranqs?) on her collar, that’s soap opera, and the audience loves soap opera, too.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control. And neutrality implies: the nation is so powerful we don’t need to trumpet our facts; we don’t need to become excited; our strength is that secure.

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

“Well, folks, our top story tonight…it turns out that IG Farben, a famous chemical and pharmaceutical octopus that put Hitler over the top in Germany, was instrumental in planning what became the EU, the European Union. In other words, today’s United Europe is World War Two by other means.”

I don’t think Williams, Pelley, or Sawyer could deliver that line without going into a terminal paroxysm.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made at the top. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world, and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists, and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals, and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope, and if the Pope has just issued a missive warning that anyone with a lung infection can be isolated and quarantined, the Program is working.

Reality is a psyop.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com

Source: Jon Rappoport

Next Page »

Bottom