News

By Chuck Baldwin
December 23, 2008


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081223.html


As we approach the celebration of Christ's birth, I am reminded of the words
of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most
joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? ... Is it not that,
in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly
linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the
progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of
Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the
Redeemer's mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human
government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world
the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced
directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the
greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?"

Adams was exactly right: America's birth is directly linked to the birth of
our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation
established by Christian people, upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to
the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within
America's earliest history.

America's forebears first established a written covenant with God as early
as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in
part:

"In the name of God, Amen. ... Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and
Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country,
a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by
these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of
another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick,
for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends
aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just
and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to
time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of
the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

The sentiments and statements of America's founders make it clear that this
nation has enjoyed a love and appreciation for the rights and freedoms
recognized in Natural Law that is unique in the annals of human history. No
other people have such a heritage.

One thing America's founders could not envision was--after they had paid so
terrible a price to purchase our liberties--that the time would come when
their posterity would be denied the basic freedoms to publicly express their
reverence for God. Never could they have imagined that the day would come
when citizens of the sovereign states (each with a state constitution
protecting religious liberty) would be denied their right to pray in school,
or place Nativity scenes on public property, or hang copies of the Ten
Commandments on courthouse walls.

I am also confident that America's founders would be completely repulsed by
the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism,
and globalism. Democrats and Republicans alike have created a central
government so large that it would be unrecognizable by any Founding Father.
In addition, both Big Business and Big Religion have sold our great country
down the proverbial river, as surely as there is a sun in the sky. Truly,
our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Therefore, at this Christmas season, let us remember well the founding
principles of these United States of America. Furthermore, let us renew with
vigor the fight for freedom before our liberties and our heritage are gone
altogether.

Merry Christmas!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin
 

Bill Mohr
2/14/2008


Almost everyone I speak with abhors the current condition of government on all levels. Taxes are too high. Government oppression has dramatically increased. Corruption is an obvious factor, not only in the high offices of government, but also at the city and township levels. People perceive they are losing the ability to influence government, which is one of the factors understood to be a fundamental in a representative republic such as ours. The list goes on and on, some complaints being valid, others vain. Nonetheless, it is apparent that government today in America bears only a similarity to the established principles our fathers set in motion, and woefully fails to greet the expectations of the current population.

Thomas Jefferson stated on January 16, 1787, "The basis of governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right..." We have not yet lost the right to express our opinion, but all too often we limit ourselves to expressing our opinion to only those friends and acquaintances who are willing to endure the repetition of our complaint, or are simply waiting anxiously to add to it.

What is good government, and why can we not attain it? John Adams wrote in a letter to George Wythe in 1776 the following:

As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute [assign] power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground.

The principal difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed, in constituting this representative assembly. It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.

I would like to submit that the representative assembly cannot possibly be anything but in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It is the people at large that elect them into office. In the paragraph just prior to this statement Mr. Adams wrote this: "The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people."

It is the people that make government what it is, especially in a representative republic. It is the people that elect their own officials and leaders. It is the people who are apathetic when comfortable, tolerant when only slightly irritated, and offer rebellion only when discomforted.

It is an amazing thing to watch an elected official, who has unquestionably betrayed the people, lied to the people, committed illicit sexual affairs while in office, and/or any number of other breaches of public trust, get re-elected. America, to its shame, has seen these things over and over in recent years. It is understandable how they could win an election the first time, but why is it they should even be re-considered as a viable candidate?

The answer is this; the representative assembly is in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. We complain that government is over taxing the people, and it is. Why? The people at large are a greedy and money hungry people. It is a greedy and money hungry person they relate to and vote for. We see sexual depravity in our elected officials. Have you looked around your acquaintance circles and society as a whole recently? Our society is in a state of moral corruption. Why are we amazed when an elected official gets caught driving under the influence and somehow manages to weasel out of a conviction. Don't we wish we could do the same thing when caught doing wrong? Are we not living in an era of drunkenness and gluttony? Are we surprised at the lies designed to lead to a self induction and increase of power, control, and lucre? How can you expect a proud and arrogant people to elect any other?

It doesn't start at the top in a representative republic. It starts at the bottom. We should not be asking what's wrong with our leaders. We should be asking where we have failed in our own lifestyles and our God given responsibilities to and for our neighbors. Philip Lindsley stated in 1825: "A free government like ours cannot be maintained except by an enlightened and virtuous people...But if the people be incapable of judging correctly of their conduct and measures, what security can they have for their liberties a single hour?"

Would you like an insight as to the state of the American governing assemblies? Look in a mirror.

Labels: corruption, election, government, vote

 

What Change?
by Chuck Baldwin
December 5, 2008



"Change you can believe in." This was Barack Obama's campaign slogan. There is no doubt that the American people were fed up with George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans. Who can blame them?
After campaigning for change back in 1999 (What political challenger doesn't campaign for change?), President Bush and his fellow neocons promptly set out to continue business as usual in Washington, D.C. Federal spending and meddling exploded under the leadership of the GOP. In fact, one has to go back to the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt to match the increases in Big Government and Big Brother by Bush and Company. Add to the out-of-control spending habits of the GOP an unnecessary war, a near-Depression economy, and a burgeoning police state. It is no surprise that the American people were ready for change. And Obama excelled in delivering the message of change. So, what kind of change will Obama actually deliver?
Will Obama remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not. Oh, he might reduce troops in Iraq, but if anyone believes that he will not leave a significant U.S. presence in Iraq, they are living in a dream world. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the troops from Iraq will most likely find themselves in Afghanistan. Mark my words; Barack Obama has no plans to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Net result: no change.
What about America's economic woes? What changes will Barack Obama bring to the table? Hardly any. America will continue it's trademark deficit spending; we will continue to send manufacturing jobs overseas; so-called "free trade" deals will continue to advance; Big Business will continue to receive government bailouts; the Federal Reserve will continue to call the shots for America's financial decisions (and reap gargantuan profits in the process); Congress will continue to be inept, irresponsible, and clueless; there will be no attempt to return the United States to sound money principles; and there will be no reduction in foreign aid. In a nutshell, it will be business as usual in Washington, D.C., and New York City.
Don't get me wrong: Barack Obama will doubtless throw out some bones to his liberal supporters in much the same way that Republican presidents throw out a bone or two to their conservative constituents. Watch for Obama to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research. America's upper income earners can expect some sort of tax increase. No doubt oil companies will end up losing some tax exemptions. Watch for additional environmentalist policies to be enacted. And, yes, there will be some sort of "universal health care" proposal. But the Bush administration has already given America a socialized financial system, so how can Republicans complain about socialized medicine?
Obama might try to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine." Some suggest that Obama might try to rid the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the armed forces, but I doubt that he will take on this one. The political net gain would not be worth the potential fallout.
Although he might want to, I doubt that Obama will actively promote additional gun control (Democrats always lose when this happens). He may push for a ban on "high capacity" magazines that hold over ten rounds, as Bill Clinton did. If Obama does not go after guns directly, we can expect some sort of attack on ammunition (which is already happening) that will drive up the cost of ammo even more. Of course, some sort of gun confiscation or martial law could materialize in the wake of another "terrorist" attack. But a McCain administration would act no differently, so, again, the net result is zero change. Remember, it was Republican George W. Bush who expunged Posse Comitatus and deployed 20,000 army troops on U.S. soil to be used for domestic law enforcement. If Obama really wanted to bring about change, he would reverse Bush's draconian decisions, would he not? Don't hold your breath.
We can also expect more harassment of gun owners and lawful gun dealers by the BATFE. But this is no change at all. The current leadership at BATFE is already about as hostile to gun owners and gun dealers as it can possibly be. An Obama BATFE will be no worse. But neither will it be any better. Net result: no change.
So, what will be the overall change to the direction of America? Answer: there will be no change to the overall direction of the country. There will be no change to the welfare state. There will be little change to the warfare state. No change to NATO, except to expand it. Very little change, if any, to foreign policy. No change to America's open sieves, otherwise called national borders. And there will be absolutely no change to the burgeoning New World Order that began in earnest under both Bushes and Bill Clinton.
The NAFTA superhighway will have the support of the Obama administration. The North American Community will proceed unimpeded by the Obama White House. In all likelihood, the Amero (a common currency with Canada and Mexico) will materialize during Obama's first term. But this would all have happened had John McCain been elected. No change here.
One reason why it is so easy to predict a business-as-usual Obama Presidency is the people that Obama has surrounded himself with. Former New York Federal Reserve chairman Timothy Geithner* for Secretary of the Treasury; former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers* for National Economic Council director; Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates* will keep his job; Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel for Obama's Chief of Staff; Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano* for Secretary of Homeland Security; former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle* to head the Health and Human Services Department; former Assistant Attorney General Eric Holder to be Attorney General; New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson* as Secretary of Commerce; Susan Rice* for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Paul Volcker* for the Economic Recovery Advisory Board; James Steinberg* as Deputy Secretary of State; Mona Sutphen* for Deputy White House Chief of Staff, and Louis Caldera* for Director of the White House Military Office.
Does anyone see "change" with the above names? Every one of them is a longtime political insider. And at least eleven of them (those with an asterisk [*] behind their names, above) are members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In fact, six out of the eleven cabinet-level positions in the Obama administration are CFR members.
The CFR has dominated both Democrat and Republican Presidential administrations for decades. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been members of the CFR. Vice Presidents such as Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney have been CFR members. And over the last several decades, practically every secretary of defense, secretary of the treasury, and most CIA directors have been CFR members. And let's not forget that this year's Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, is a CFR member.
Do you now see why--no matter who is elected President of the United States--nothing changes? Republican or Democrat, it does not matter: the CFR and their collaborators remain in power. And as Sonny and Cher used to sing, "The Beat Goes On."
There will be no real change in Washington, D.C., until the CFR and their elitist cronies are thoroughly and universally removed from power. And the only way this will happen is if we elect an Independent President of the United States (someone who truly understands the New World Order and is dedicated to defeating it), because the two major parties will never allow someone opposed to the CFR to become their nominee. The only Republican candidate for President in 2008 who demonstrated those credentials was Dr. Ron Paul. And to a lesser degree, the only Democrat who even seemed to vaguely understand this was Dennis Kucinich. Notice that both men were thoroughly repudiated by their respective parties' leadership and all but totally ignored by the national news media. (The CFR and their surrogates also control the national news media. What a coincidence!)
So, while the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may have changed, there will be no real change to the direction of these United States. Count on it!

---------------------------------------------------------------

What A Bargain!
 

Alternative Party, Not Third Party!
The notion comes to my mind, how can a group of persons who are called third parties, have any influence on the public, when they are listed by such a negative term. It makes them sound like "third rate", an expression that diminishes their influence and increases the importance of the Republican and Democratic Parties every time you hear it!

We, also have heard the terms used "major and minor", by calling the Republican and Democratic Parties, the "two major parties". We again set them above the alternative parties. How can we expect the voters to take us seriously, when we don’t take ourselves seriously?
The news media have tagged us as third party. It isn’t even accurate! How can you have four or five different political parties all bunched together and describe as third parties especially when we two of them are conservative and the Green Party is liberal.

The title,"Alternative Parties", is a more positive label. Signifying that we are separate parties with different ideas and issues and that we are contending with the two other parties, because we represent a certain kind of American voter with their own views on many issues.

U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan!
The US Taxpayers Party of Michigan voters are interested in bringing back the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Right to Life (especially for the unborn), the protection of our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. This is just to mention only a few issues of importance to us. The Republicans and Democrats have ignored acting on these issues for too, too many years!

It is of paramount importance that there is a system to protect the citizens of the United States. The two party system doesn’t seem to be honest and ingenuous enough to protect our citizens from being lead down a blind alley. A dedicated “Alternative Party can be of help by giving support to the truths of the Constitutional Republic. However, it would have to acquire enough influence to compel the other parties to act in moderation by at times voting with their opponents against an unconstitutional bill or amendment when essential and proper. Your Support is Needed Now!

If you are still reading this article "Bless You and Yours" we need your to support us now. The Alternative Party of the US Taxpayers Party of Michigan needs a lot more paid members it can only coast you a dollar or two dollars a month and would mean a lot to the growth of our party. We also need you to consider being a volunteer. It may be only a couple hours a month but this also would help us to expend the destiny of our alternative party and be very valuable to us.

We need your creative minds and energy; we need your help at our State Central Meetings and at local meetings in every county in Michigan. Go to our state party web site and get in touch with Jerry Van Sickle. He will help you get started in your area and when you have your meetings, he will put the date on the web-site calendar. My e-mail address is ronaldmonroe@sbcglobal.net. Please get in touch with me if I can help you in any way. Our State and Party needs you now!

The Conservative movement in our country is slowly but surely disappearing and possibly our religious freedom with it!

Let Us Stand Together!
Ronald Monroe
2nd Vice Chairman
U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan
 

Obama - McCain Meeting Shows "Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference" Between Two

The "Fix" Is In; Same-Old-Same-Old Two Party Charade

Lancaster, PA, (November 17,2008) The Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com), America's fastest- growing third party, points out Monday's meeting between president-elect Barack Obama and former GOP rival John McCain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27764127/) shows the striking similarity of both candidates when it comes to the issues.

Obama promised that his meeting with McCain was to "have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country."

Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer said, "It's ludicrous to hear Obama say he and McCain can talk about "fixing-up" the country when both these candidates supported the disastrous so-called "bailouts" which can do no such thing."

Clymer added, "To think that the American people fell for the 'two party' ruse thinking all along they were actually voting for any politically distinct ideology is absurd."

During Monday's meeting with McCain, Obama said, "We shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. ..."

"It's precisely that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place", Clymer, noted.

The Constitution Party challenged voters during the election to show any measurable difference between the two candidates on issues like illegal immigration, second amendment gun-owner rights, taxation, foreign intervention, unconstitutional wars and job-destroying "free-trade" schemes like NAFTA and GATT.

During Monday's meeting, president-elect Obama pledged to "restore America's moral standing in the world".

"This statement comes from the U.S. Senate's most rabid pro-abort", said Clymer. "If Obama was so determined to 'restore America's moral standing in the world" he would have started in Illinois. He would not have fought so hard to defeat the 'Born Alive Infant Protection Act'." (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647) That legislation offered babies who survived late term abortions humane care until their death.

"Obama apparently thinks infanticide is A-ok, at least during the first few hours post birth, and now he has the audacity of hope for “moral standing" in the world?" Clymer asked.

The Constitution Party's candidate for president, Chuck Baldwin, was the only candidate for president who was pro-life, pro-secure borders and pro-2^nd amendment. Baldwin opposed the "bailouts", challenged the constitutionality of the war in Iraq and promoted the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and IRS. Baldwin was on the ballot in 37 states.