Who's the crazy one?

Who's the crazy one?

More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee

More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee


Many Christian conservatives see Mike Huckabee as the best candidate to deliver the GOP from an impending pro-abortion presidential nomination of either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Huckabee is doing especially well in Iowa, particularly among evangelicals. Is Mike Huckabee worthy of this support, however? The facts say no.

I have already attempted to warn my evangelical brethren as to the dangers of supporting Mike Huckabee. See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html However, that first column was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Here are more reasons to beware of Mike Huckabee.

Robert Novak recently wrote a column about Mike Huckabee entitled, "The False Conservative." In the column he said, "Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans."

Novak also said, "There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. . . He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes."

Novak continued saying, "Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee 'a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak.' Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism."

Calling Huckabee a proponent of big-government is an understatement. "If you listen closely, all the things he supports increase the size, power and cost of government. From subsidies for energy research to increasing money for health care and government housing, the size, power, and cost of government will not shrink under a President Mike Huckabee; they will increase . . . Mr. Huckabee swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution when he became governor, yet many of his proposals are clearly unconstitutional." (Source: David Ulrich, Letter of the Week, World Net Daily, 10/26/07)

In addition, Dr. Jerome Corsi reports that "Financial inducements arranged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to establish a Mexican consular office in Little Rock may have violated state law, according to an Arkansas attorney."

Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Corsi exposed the fact that Mike Huckabee "worked with some of the state's most prominent and politically powerful businesses to establish the [Mexican] consulate as a magnet for drawing illegal immigrants to the state to accept low-paying jobs."

Corsi goes on to report that "Arkansas attorney Chip Sexton provided WND a written legal brief arguing the state government's sublease to Mexico of office space for the consulate was illegal under Arkansas law. Sexton contended the deal raised questions about the appropriateness of private citizens and corporations in Arkansas providing financial incentives for the government of Mexico to locate a consulate office in Little Rock."

Corsi also writes that "Robert Trevino, commissioner of Arkansas Rehabilitation Services, told WND he and Huckabee helped arrange state and private financial support to induce Mexico to establish the consulate as a business development 'quid pro quo.'

"Trevino signed on July 7, 2006, a 'Facilities Use Agreement' with Mexican consular officials to rent state government office space for $1 a year on the second floor of the Arkansas Rehabilitation Services building at 26 Corporate Hills in Little Rock."

According to Sexton, not only did subleasing state government offices to Mexico violate Arkansas state law under Ark. Code Ann. 22-2-114(C)(i) which provides: "After July 1, 1975, no state agency shall enter into or renew or otherwise negotiate a lease between itself as lessor or lessee and a nongovernmental or other government lessor or lessee," but it was even more offensive in that "there was nothing in the lease or other agreements that would have prevented the Mexican consulate from providing legal assistance to illegal aliens."

In addition, Corsi also exposed the fact that Mike Huckabee worked with Mexican President Vicente Fox to help provide cheap Mexican labor for Tyson foods and other large Arkansas corporations. According to Corsi, "Trevino confirmed he was state director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, also known as LULAC, an activist group strongly advocating for the rights of Hispanic immigrants in the U.S., when on Oct. 3, 2003, he accompanied Huckabee in a state airplane to visit [President Vicente] Fox in Mexico."

There is more.

The American Spectator reported that "Fourteen times, the ethics commission--a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group--investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And as only MSNBC among the big national media has reported at an real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way."

Plus, writing for The Washington Times, Greg Pierce quoted Hillyer as saying, "[Huckabee] used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor's mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a 'charitable' organization he set up while lieutenant governor--an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious 'charity.'"

Mike Huckabee's beliefs and actions even border on the bizarre. According to David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, "GOP presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee suggested that as president he would, for the good of the people, support a federal anti-smoking law. You see, as governor, Huckabee supported such laws because, well, he doesn't like smoking and doesn't think folks should indulge in so heath-threatening an activity. If he could move on up to the presidency, he would continue his abolitionist crusade at the national level without giving much, if any, thought to the question of whether the Constitution or anything else would legitimize a federal ban on smoking."

I have yet one more word of warning for those evangelicals supporting Huckabee because he is pro-life: Mike Huckabee will most definitely support Rudy Giuliani should Giuliani obtain the Republican nomination. Count on it.

I ask you, how could a committed "pro-life" conservative support a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control liberal such as Rudy Giuliani? He couldn't.

At the end of the day, however, there is absolutely no question that Huckabee will support Giuliani (or any other pro-abortion Republican), because, when all is said and done, Huckabee and his fellow big-government Republicans have no real commitment to the life issue or to any other conservative principle.

Let's say it plainly: Mike Huckabee is just another big-government, establishment politician who will do nothing to stem the tide of socialism or fascism (pick your poison) emanating from Washington, D.C., these days.

Dear Christian friend, don't be duped by Mike Huckabee.

Headz Up

found these very funny, yet relevant clips on Youtube a few weeks back.

Headzup: Pat Robertson Endorses Giuliani


Headzup: Are Ron Paul Supporters Terrorists?


Related Video of the loony Glenn Beck and his stance on Ron Paul Supporters. Idiot!!!!
Glenn Beck CNN Denounces Ron Paul & Supporters :: Nov 16th


Headzup: Cheney And War With Iran

Hmmmm, very odd, isn't it?

This guy is great.

I used to watch him on ESPN years ago, he is so much better now.

An Appeal To My(Chuck Baldwin's) Fellow Pastors

An Appeal To My Fellow Pastors

Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.

Consider how Congressman Paul's message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. "I've been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I'm leaning real strong toward Ron Paul." Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, "Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we'd been let down by Bush." As for Iraq, he said, "I don't think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture." He said he now feels "humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven't done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul's kind of integrity." [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]

Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, "As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . ."

Ron Paul doesn't recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn't need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.

This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul's priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.

Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is "anti-family." Such people mean well but are confused.

America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance--at the local level--to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.

In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.

Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.

Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that "the government that governs least governs best."

Accordingly, America's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us--not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.

Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.

The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.

The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.

You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one "in whom we live and move and have our being." Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul--an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense--opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.

Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.

Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html , Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul's non-interventionist position above all others.

In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise?

Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate?

Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website: http://ronpaul2008.com

It's been a while

I have been swamped at work with a project that kept my month of October very exciting. Things are slightly back to normal. I have a very great articles from my favorite pastor Chuck Baldwin.

Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee

With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly's national Eagle Forum, said, "We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor." Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles." She went on to say, "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

Even one of Huckabee's strongest supporters within the Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." Of course, my question for Rick Scarborough is, With an indictment such as that, how can you continue to support Mike Huckabee?

According to an opinion piece written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, "Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, 'I know of no conservative he [Huckabee] appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.'"

Fund went on to say that "Mr. Huckabee's reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton."

Fund also said this about Huckabee: "'He's just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,' a former top Huckabee aide told me. 'As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I'll guarantee is that won't lead to competent conservative governance.'"

Mike Huckabee is also terrible on immigration. According to Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, "Rudy Giuliani spent years defending the right of New York City to remain a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee."

Regarding Huckabee's stance on immigration, Mr. Minton said, "Until of late, he has been an open-borders guy on immigration--amnesty, the whole works. As governor, he wanted to give free college scholarships to all illegals."

Minton's assertion is backed up by Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. He said, "Like his fellow presidential candidate [who recently dropped out of the race], Sen. Sam Brownback, Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together, they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens."

Ann Coulter agrees: "On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, 'I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.'

"Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up 'those who are racist and bigots.'

"He also made the insane point that companies such as Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn't allow non-citizens to vote, because it would 'send the message that, essentially, "If you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don't want you."'

"Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking--unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant."

A former state lawmaker, Minton also said, that Huckabee was not a "fiscally conservative Republican." Rather, Huckabee was regarded as just another liberal "tax and spender" in fiscal matters. This is in direct opposition to Huckabee's boast of "90 tax cuts during his tenure." And the facts seem to validate Minton, not Huckabee.

An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration report showed a "net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth" on Huckabee's watch.

That Huckabee is a liberal "tax and spender" is also affirmed by Tom Roeser. According to Roeser, "[Huckabee] hiked state spending 65.3%, from 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the 'Club for Growth' to call him a liberal in disguise . . ."

Roeser also points out that "The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over 20% and Arkansas' general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion."

Furthermore, according to the Washington Times, "Until recently, he [Huckabee] had refused to sign the famous no-tax pledge offered to candidates by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform."

In spite of Huckabee's proven big-government, big-spending, and pro-amnesty record, however, some Christian conservatives are falling for his conservative rhetoric. It seems that all a Republican candidate has to do is start talking "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" and he or she will gain the support of certain Christian conservatives.

First it was Bob Jones, III endorsing the liberal former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and now it is Janet Folger endorsing the liberal former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Why any Christian leader would want to support a man with such a dubious record truly escapes me.

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee. He is not a conservative. Even worse, he is not a constitutionalist. He is an opportunist, however. This is demonstrated by the fact that many of his supporters are openly posturing (with Huckabee's consent, obviously) for an opportunity to run Huckabee as a potential Vice Presidential candidate with either Giuliani or Romney at the top of the ticket.

Let me ask the reader something. How could a principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution conservative be willing to run on a ticket with a liberal presidential candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney? That's right, he couldn't.

I say again, beware of Mike Huckabee!

I Apologize....

It has been a busy past few weeks, I have a big project at work and have had little time to post.

I titled this post I apologize and here is why.

- I apologize to this country for voting for George W. Bush two times.
- I apologize to all the democrats and progressives, whom I ignored, that were screaming of the injustices that this administration has done.
- I apologize for being ignorant of the political process and simply equating God with Republican and not understanding the real issues.
- I apologize to all the innocent lives that have been ruined in Iraq because this administration is blood thirsty for Oil.
- I apologize to my children who will not live in the same country that I grew up in.
- I apologize those who hate Christianity as an organization, this is not the true represenation of what faith in Christ should be.

Mainly, I apologize to everyone for being an ostric and keeping my head in the sand for the past several years. Life is much diffrent now for me, I no longer stand on the sidelines and let life pass me by.

The "Fix" Is In

Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dobson Is Right About Giuliani

Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giuliani Is Everyone's Worst Nightmare

Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thompson Surge Means Conservatives Are Desperate

Direct Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He will do nothing to stand in the way of the emerging North American Union, and the NAFTA Superhighway, and he will continue the push for globalization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I already hear the fat lady warming up.

Top of Center - Ron Paul versus Rudy Giuliani Analysis

So many of the right wingers just don't get this concept, or they want to ignore it.

O'Reilly can't wear Olbermann's shorts.

Spoken by a true American.

Bill O'Reilly is such a shill

He never conducts a debate that lets the other person finish their thoughts.



Go Ron Paul.

Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism

Ever since 9/11/01 we have been at war with terrorism, or so we thought. The below video proves how the Bush White House made plans for invasion of Iraq 10 days into the administration. Of course, this could never happen without a "New Pearl Harbor" as defined by the Project for a New American Century written prior to Bush taking office. Interesting, they say in the fall of 2000 we need a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to rebuild our defenses. In the fall of 2001, 9/11, interesting I have heard 9/11 many times referred to as the 2nd Pearl Harbor. Ahhh, what am I thinking it HAS to be coincidence, otherwise I would be a conspiracy theorist of the governments official story about 9/11. Hey wait, aren't these the same people that wrote that document? hmmm, I am no math genius but sometimes 1 + 1 really does equal 2....

Ron Paul: Our Power, Our Responsibility

Set to some rockin music.....



This is our country, get mad and let's take it back.

9/11, Six Years Later By Chuck Baldwin

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070911.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/11, War and Christian actions

Today marks the 6th anniversary of the most tragic day in United States history. A day that shifted the opinions and views of everyone in this free country. Since that day we have been fighting the "war on terror", a war that some have said could last 100 years. In essence, we can never win. Until recently, I bought into the right wing line of thinking. Support this war or you are not patriotic, or even more diabolical from the "Christian Right", support this president or you are not with God. I am beginning to understand what I think the true meaning is of separation of church and state. I have witnessed how easy it is to dupe a large group of people all in the name of God and Godly values. As I have awoken out of my slumber I have been able to see through this fog of control and manipulation that many in the Christian community have used to form and mold our opinions on issue we know nothing about. I have learned that I can be a christian and not agree with the Bush administration and all the right wing propaganda that is thrown at us. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I have been able to become a better Christian as I have learned how important it is to be a follower of Christ. You know, the one that said
"Mat 22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment. Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Do you think he was talking the folks that live next to you or maybe was he talking about all of our neighbors in this world that we have to share? The same guy that said "Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,". Remember him?
I am afraid that too many Christians have simplified Christian living to simply saying a pray and letting others handle the details. We have a "christian" president, so let him preemtively strike a nation that has done no harm to us. God must be with him, right? Too many Christians ignore the love that Jesus requires us to share with all people no matter what religion they are a part of. Does that mean all religions go to heaven? My faith tells me no and I will espouse to that, however, even if a person is going to hell it doesn't mean we need to make this life on earth hell before they get there.
I am begging any Christian out there to be smart with the sources of information that you are getting. I have learned that just because a source seems to be defending you and your values doesn't not mean they, 1. are out for your best interests or 2. are telling you the truth. I am finding this in most media that will not be critical of Bush and his administration. Most of these shows have an agenda and it is to support the right wing through all its lies and scandals, and there are many.
We are to judge the fruit of our Christian leaders, this presidents fruit speaks for itself. The sad part is that so many in the Christian Right are so dependent politically on the Right Wing to succeed that they seem to have lost their way and sold out. This is the reason why we has Christians need to understand politics and influence them without politics influencing us. Ultimately, the powers of evil are bound to creep in.

We need to take back our constitution

Or we could all be another Jose Padilla.

We need to understand history

let's take back this country before it's too late.

The Ron Paul Revolution continued

He has it right, the laughs during the questions just shows how tasteless FoxNews and their agenda machine is.

The People want him,

the media needs to stop spinning this.

Ron Paul : When in the course of human events...

We need more rallies like this

Say no to the Real ID act no matter what happens.

Will Lady Liberty Last Beyond 2010?

Will Lady Liberty Last Beyond 2010?




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

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

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

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

2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor set-back when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that George W. Bush is going to let that bill
lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. President Bush will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law before he leaves office. I would not be surprised if he attempted some sort of Executive Order or Presidential Directive in order to accomplish it. You see, it is absolutely essential to the designers of despotism that our southern border be eliminated. Absolutely essential.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their hand-picked puppets positioned to take the reins from Dubya, and the pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.

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

I don't think she could find it either

Blowback

Only illistrated with comedy.

GIMME! Ministries #6: Left Right Left

Link

New Series from the Naked Pastor

GIMME! Ministries #3: Basking



Comments from David Hayward "GIMME! Ministries stands for Globalized International Missional-Minded Evangelism Ministries. My take on some international ministries… cuz I have insider info!"

Link

Split up in the Ministry

it has been a while since I posted something on a christian nature.

Divorce shakes White's evangelical empire

This article talks about the split and the empire that they have build through the ministry. Christians that support this name it, claim it theology might want to think twice before giving to these ministries. Most of the people in these denominations that are getting God's "blessings" are the ones that receive the tax-free money from the poor and needy who need healing or other miracles in their life. God cannot be used as a way to wealth or certain healing. God can make you wealthy or he can heal you by his sovereign work. It is HIS doing not what we do.

Before giving to a minitry check out the following website: www.ministrywatch.com.

Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008

Chuck Baldwin hits another home run with this one.



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The virus that is Michelle Malkin

I love it when people go on TV to smear someone then have to eat crow after the facts get publicized.

Miss Malkin's attempt to smear Ron Paul


Educating Rudy...and Michelle


More info on Blowback and our "wonderfully nice" foreign policy.


Americans are good people(well except for most people @ FoxNews), our leaders are another story.......

9/11 Web sites and resources.

The following is a list of websites that I have come across as I look into this issue of the true story of 9/11.

9/11 Truth - The main 9/11 Truth site, There are many off shoots of this site @ this link

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Credible Architects and Engineers that question the official story.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Scholars that question the official story.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice - Scholars that question the official story.

Patriots question 911 - Folks from all different walks of life that question the official conspiracy theory.

Pilots for 911 Truth - Profession pilots that don't buy that 3 of 4 planes flew for up to an hour off course and hit their targets in restricted air space.

Here is are some sites defending the official story.

911 Myths - Debunking all these wacko conspiracy theorists.

Screw Loose Change Blog - a site that is dedicated to debunking 911 films.
Hope that helps in your independent investigation of the issue.

The passing of a true patriot

Yesterday, Aaron Russo died of cancer. Russo is best known for producing Trading Places, The Rose. What he should be best known for however is his latest film America: Freedom to Fascism. In this movie he addresses the illegal start of the Federal Reserve System and the IRS. In addition, he shows where the future is headed with the North American Union and Microchipping the entire population. Aaron Russo really did a great job on the film in explaining, in laypersons terms, a lot of patriots have had their eyes open by his great work. I hope he was able to settle his account with the Lord before his passing. God Bless and Rest in Peace Mr. Russo.

Iraq '03 vs Iran '07

This video exposes the hypocracy that is FoxNews we cannot go to War with Iran unless we want Russia and China involved in a full fledged World War III.

Media Coverup

William Rodriguez has an amazing story to tell about 911, he says that before any plane hit the towers there was a massive explosion in the basement. Why don't we hear anything about this exposion in the media. The first clip he mentions this, the second clip, they cut him off and explain it was the first plane.



The media cutoff


Here is another one that I cannot embed.