USofA-First.org

by Chuck Baldwin
August 15, 2008

Every time violence erupts somewhere in the world, our national leaders and news media make it sound like that particular outbreak is America’s greatest threat. The conflict between Russia and Georgia is no exception. Almost as soon as news of the conflict broke, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, was suggesting that the United States (or the United Nations) should send troops to the scene. I guess two wars are not enough for McCain; he now wants to start a third. (And with all his talk about bombing Iran, make that four.) And talk all over Washington, D.C., was mostly about what kind of military response the United States should take.

Have people lost their minds? Or do people really believe that the United States is the world’s–or should we say the United Nations’–policeman? Apparently, that is what our national leaders from both major parties believe.

Let’s face it: most of America’s foreign policy over the last several decades has been more about fulfilling the U.N.’s global desires than protecting the people and property of the United States. And, yes, that includes America’s invasion of Iraq.

Do readers not remember that soon after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush appeared before the United Nations and plainly told that sinister organization that the reason he had ordered the invasion of Iraq was to “defend . . . the credibility of the United Nations”? Frankly, I did not know the United Nations had any credibility worth defending. Nevertheless, G.W. Bush was willing to sacrifice over 4,000 American lives for the express purpose of defending the U.N.’s “credibility.” Now, John McCain appears willing to send troops to Georgia.

I will not use this column to analyze the specific events leading up to Russia’s attack against Georgia, except to say that one can count on the fact that there is much more to the story than what NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are telling us.

In addition, one of the major fallacies being perpetrated by most in Washington, D.C., is the notion that America is somehow strengthened and protected by aggressive meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. Such a philosophy was considered anathema to America’s Founding Fathers. They rightly understood that such reasoning created more problems than it solved and that it made America more vulnerable, not more secure.

Regardless of what the underlying and overriding reasons for Russia’s attack might have been, I will say here and now that the Russian-Georgian conflict is not America’s greatest threat. I will also be so bold as to say that Iran or North Korea is not America’s greatest threat, either. In fact, I will categorically state that no foreign nation (although, of all foreign nations, Red China should undoubtedly be our biggest concern–and none of our national leaders seem the least bit concerned about it) is America’s greatest threat. America’s greatest threat comes from within. And I am not alone in that opinion.

Daniel Webster warned, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

While the national media focuses on Russia, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, our own leaders are quietly molding the clay of our own demise right here at home. Both political parties, and the standard-bearers they select, are facilitating the surrender of our national sovereignty and independence. They are working in darkness to build an international community where the laws and principles of individual nation-states (including America’s) are made subservient to the laws and principles of international entities. This is America’s greatest threat.

For example, John McCain supports the International Criminal Court. Can you believe this? Can you imagine U.S. citizens being hauled off before an international court to be tried for crimes? Imagine an international court whose rulings and opinions overrule U.S. rulings and opinions. Imagine a court setting where the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights are null and void. Imagine a court setting where international law trumps U.S. or state laws. If that is not a surrender of U.S. sovereignty, nothing is! And John McCain is all for it.

Furthermore, both John McCain and Barack Obama support NAFTA, the WTO, GATT, and the FTAA. Both major party candidates support the NAFTA superhighway, the creation of a North American Community (which is the precursor to a North American Union), the SPP, and the United Nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen, America is on the verge of losing its independence and its national sovereignty. And both major political parties (along with a compliant national media) are equally culpable. And mark this down: when America loses its independence and national sovereignty, we also lose our freedoms and liberties. Please remember that before a Constitution and Bill of Rights could be drafted, there was first drafted a Declaration of Independence. It is the Declaration of Independence that lays the cornerstone and builds the wall of protection around the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lose the Declaration and we lose the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

No, the greatest threat to America does not come from Russia, Iraq, Iran, or any other foreign country. America’s greatest threat comes from a complacent populace who would sit back and do nothing while our own civil magistrates surrender our nation’s sovereignty and independence to international interests.

Think about it: 232 years after Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, and after our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend that document, our nation’s leaders from both major parties are in the process of ceding America back to the kind of global empire from which we fought to break free. This is America’s greatest threat!

Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column

Recently Congress passed the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act., also known as the Housing Bill. Its passage was lauded by many who are legitimately concerned about foreclosures and the housing market in our country’s economy. I was asked how I could vote against a bill to help American homeowners, but I found this bill to have more to do with helping big banks than helping average Americans.

The answer is that there is more to any bill than its name or the headlines surrounding it. If one only paid attention to bill titles, one could happily vote for almost any bill put to a vote on the floor. Titles do not tell the complete story of a bill’s provisions, and many titles are downright deceptive and come close to emotional blackmail of legislators. But we cannot afford to be fooled by fancy titles. The housing bill could perhaps be more aptly named The Big Banking Bailout at Taxpayer Expense Act as large sections of it were written by big banking lobbyists according to Evans and Novak reporter Tim Carney’s Capitol Hill sources. At least that title would be honest.

Also, many of these magnanimous sounding foreign aid bills and so-called human rights resolutions have counterproductive and hypocritical language tucked into the fine print. The recent bill on China was a good example. This resolution calls on China to hold meetings with the Dalai Lama without preconditions, when that is something our own government will not do with Iran. How our government has the authority to tell China what to do it beyond me, especially when we demand something so hypocritical. On foreign aid bills and legislation that on the surface seems very charitable, upon closer examination we find strings attached and a lot of manipulation of the marketplace. Many times, these bills purport to help the destitute, but actually help multinational corporations or prop up dictators that might otherwise be deposed by their people.

The other point to take into consideration on legislation and House resolutions is that intentions are not enough. It is not enough to want to solve a problem with legislation, and name a bill to that effect. The crafters of the legislation need to demonstrate a clear and honest understanding of the problem, in order to put forward a realistic strategy to solving it. Too many times, I just don’t see that. Instead I see more taxes, more restrictions, more violations of the Constitution, and more unintended consequences.

One shouldn’t judge legislation based on titles, good intentions, or what someone says the bill will do. Imagine if all the legislation in the history of this country actually did what the title of the bills proclaimed they would do. How very different this country would be! There would be no poverty, no drugs, no crime. In fact if it was that easy, Congress by now would have probably repealed the law of gravity, and supply and demand as well, and replaced them with unlimited wealth and given all Americans the power of flight. What a fanciful world our legislators live in at times!

Though I am at times accused of being mean-spirited regarding the many bills I vote against, I don’t so much think of my vote as against the legislation, as much as FOR the Constitution, according to my duties as a Congressman.

These Dogs Don’t Hunt:
The Democrats’ War on Guns
When You and Other Thinking Americans Read it Firearm Haters Can Kiss Their Gun Ban Plans Goodbye!

These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns contains gripping evidence of the continuing political plans to destroy the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in America. Exposes key Democrat leaders in their own words and deeds. No where else can you find all this information in one place. This is a must read. Full of behind the scenes political maneuvering aimed at confusing gun owners as to who their real enemies are.

It Could Be the Biggest Impact on Gun Rights this year
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns is a blockbuster book filled with the latest truth about the plans to stack the courts with anti-gun judges, change laws and use bureaucrats to attack gun rights all researched by two internationally famous authors, Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman.

Buy the book now!

By Patrick Wood,
Editor

Will it matter if Obama or McCain are elected in November? Hardly.

Both are rigidly backed by important members of the Trilateral Commission who hijacked the Executive Branch of the U.S. government starting in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter.

In Obama’s case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.

John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign.

And, unless Obama shoots both of his own feet (or…?) before the general presidential election in November, he is most likely to be the next president of the United States.

You would think that Americans would want to know who the “special interests” are that are embodied by this Trilateral Commission, and what they intend to do or not do with America.

What is the Trilateral Commission?

The Trilateral Commission was founded by the persistent maneuvering of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the Trilateral Commission.

Brzezinski served as the Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The initial Commission membership was approximately three hundred, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided between academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and corporate directors of media giants.

The word commission was puzzling since it is usually associated with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place with a so-called private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm of a government - an unseen government, different from the visible government in Washington. European and Japanese involvement indicated a world government rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.

If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force” assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

Jimmy Carter: The first Trilateral president

President James Earl Carter, the country politician who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Commission by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter as presidential timber, and subsequently educated him in economics, foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon Carter’s election, Brzezinski was appointed assistant to the president for national security matters. Commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president - some said Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.

Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the Commission. (If you are trying to calculate the odds of three virtually unknown men, out of over sixty Commissioners from the U.S., capturing the three most powerful positions in the land, don’t bother. Your calculations will be meaningless.)

On January 7, 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley Donovan was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter “Man of the Year.” The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to mention Carter’s connection with the Commission but also stated the following:

“As he searched for Cabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times hesitant and frustrated disconcertingly out of character. His lack of ties to Washington and the Party Establishment - qualities that helped raise him to the White House - carry potential dangers. He does not know the Federal Government or the pressures it creates. He does not really know the politicians whom he will need to help him run the country.”

Was this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or was it deliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976 - two weeks before the Time article appeared - Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinet members – Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown - were Trilateral Commissioners; and the other non-Commission members were not unsympathetic to Commission objectives and operations. In addition, Carter had appointed another fourteen Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:
C. Fred Bergsten (Under Secretary of Treasury)
James Schlesinger (Secretary of Energy)
Elliot Richardson (Delegate to Law of the Sea)
Leonard Woodcock (Chief envoy to China)
Andrew Young (Ambassador to the United Nations).

As of 25 December 1976, therefore, there were nineteen Trilaterals, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power. These presidential appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States. The odds of that happening “by chance” are beyond calculation!

Realities of the New World Order

In 1972, Brzezinski’s wrote that “nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
The late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) was one of a very few people who understood what Brzezinski was alluding to, when he issued a clear and precise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:

“The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.”

Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2008

Every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation through the President or Vice-President, or both! George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dick Cheney are all members.

In turn, these have appointed their Trilateral cronies to top positions in their Administrations.

For instance, six out of seven World Bank presidents have been members of the Commission. Eight out of ten USTR’s (U.S. Trade Representative) have been members.

Secretaries of State include Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. Yep, all members of the Trilateral Commission.

Follow the money, follow the power

You decide which is scarier: Obama and Brzezinski or McCain and Henry Kissinger?
Either way, Americans will continue to lose…

Every major crisis we face today is directly attributable to policies put forth and executed by members of this Trilateral Commission: Banking/lending/mortgage crisis, energy/gas price crisis, food/shortage/price crisis.

In addition, in the last fifteen to twenty years we have lost of millions of prime manufacturing jobs to China, India and Mexico. Our prime assets are being purchased by sovereign wealth funds and foreign investors. Our currency has all but been destroyed throughout the world.

Remember Brzezinski’s vision that “international banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”?

Well, that’s been true enough. But, for all their acting and planning at the expense of our own prosperity and Sovereignty, who wants or needs more of the same under Obama or McCain? With friends like this, who needs enemies?

For several Presidential elections now, this writer has voted according to the philosophy of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Never again!

A vote for either Obama or McCain is a vote for the complete destruction of America!

Since 1976, the members of the Trilateral Commission have carefully backed presidential candidates in both political parties, to insure their continued Hegemony over the Executive Branch of the U.S. government.

In the upcoming 2008, few are watching to see who the Trilateral-backed candidates will be. Still, it’s very noteworthy to observe early Trilateral support for candidate John McCain (R-AZ) by Commisisoners Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig.

Also of note is that all four of these are are also former Secretaries of State:
Kissinger - under Nixon and Ford
Schultz and Haig - under Ronald Reagan
Eagleburger - under George H.W. Bush

Collectively, Kissinger, Schultz, Haig and Eagleburger represent the white-hot core of the global elite.

The fact that McCain has been lagging in public polls recently is not a stumbling block to receiving Trilateral support: Globalists simply want operatives who will implement their policies and protect their hegemony. Given enough money and support from the Trilateral-dominated press, it is easier to change the public’s opinion about their “chosen” than it is to change another candidates opinions on globalism.

Even if McCain gets abandoned in the future, receiving such endorsements is a pointed confirmation of his position toward corporate globalization.

The August Review will continue to monitor Trilateral Commission involvement in the 2008 presidential race.

by Chuck Baldwin
August 5, 2008

Both Republican Party Presidential candidate John McCain and Democrat Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama recently spoke at the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza. I’m sure most readers understand that “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.”

That McCain and Obama would pander before an organization such as La Raza indicates just how deeply both the Republican and Democrat parties are committed to appeasing the pro-illegal immigration forces. And mark it down: there is not a more pro-illegal alien organization in existence than La Raza.

As a comparison: can one imagine the maelstrom that would be created within the mainstream media if both major-party Presidential candidates appeared before a gathering of an all-white organization called “The Race”?

As if having the two major-party Presidential candidates appear before La Raza isn’t enough, the current occupant of the White House, President George W. Bush, is also on record as supporting the goals of La Raza. Remember, it was George W. Bush, along with Senators John McCain, Ted Kennedy, and Lindsey Graham, who did everything within their power to coerce both houses of Congress into passing a sweeping amnesty bill for illegal aliens. Only a unified and thunderous protest from millions of average Americans defeated their efforts.

President Bush’s support for La Raza is also demonstrated by the fact that the Bush administration (with the aid and assistance of Congress) has given millions of taxpayer dollars to the pro-illegal alien group.

Columnist Michelle Malkin recently wrote a revealing article that warned the American people of things everyone should know about La Raza. Here are a few samples.

La Raza supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. La Raza demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. La Raza opposes cooperative immigration enforcement between local, state and federal authorities. La Raza opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

La Raza opposed the state of Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation. La Raza joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Prop. 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

La Raza gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA. The late Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized MEChA as “a radical racist group . . . one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.”

La Raza sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal grants). La Raza thrives on ethnic supremacy–and the elite’s unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’–and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.” (Source: National Review Online)

In spite of La Raza’s obvious racist, anti-American agenda, both John McCain and Barack Obama were more than happy to prostitute themselves in front of this grubby group. And, as already noted, President Bush has repeatedly championed many of La Raza’s goals and has rewarded La Raza with millions of federal tax dollars.

Accordingly, President George W. Bush, and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are not only three peas in a pod when it comes to illegal immigration: they are The Three Amigos.

Just as George W. Bush has no intention of securing America’s borders, neither does John McCain nor Barack Obama. Both of these Presidential candidates will continue the policies of their predecessor and leave the U.S. wide open to the threat of potential terrorists, drug dealers, violent gang members, and felonious criminals.

The reason for this should be obvious: McCain and Obama, along with many others in Washington, D.C., do not believe in putting America first. They are globalists through and through. As I have often said, the real battle today is not between liberals and conservatives. Those labels are meaningless. It is not between Republicans and Democrats. Pat Buchanan was right when he said that the two major parties are merely “two wings of the same bird of prey.”

The real battle today is between Americans and globalists. Between those who believe in constitutional government, national sovereignty and independence, secure borders, and putting America first, and those who want to merge the United States into some kind of global New World Order.

As I said, John McCain and Barack Obama are globalists. And their pandering before an anti-American, racist organization such as La Raza proves it.

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

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080805.html

by Chuck Baldwin
July 30, 2008

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.” She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a “democracy.” That’s odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a “democracy” in favor of creating a constitutional republic.

Has anyone quoted the Pledge of Allegiance lately? Does it say, “And to the democracy for which it stands”? Or does it say, “And to the republic for which it stands”? Of course it says “republic.”

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got–a republic or monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic–if you can keep it.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the sixty-four million dollar question: Can we keep our republic? Can we keep our constitutional form of government? Can we keep our constitutionally protected liberties?

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison (”The Father of the U.S. Constitution”) said, “[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America’s founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life. Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same blessings are currently being lost.

Someone needs to remind Rep. Pelosi that it is not her duty (nor does she have the power) to “save the planet.” And by the same token, someone needs to remind Senators Barack Obama and John McCain that they are not campaigning to be President of the World, but President of the United States.

What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. End of story.

Our public servants are not charged with saving the snail darter or the Spotted Owl, or saving the profits of the international bankers, or saving Wall Street in general, or saving the perks of corporate lobbyists, or saving Freddie and Fannie, or saving the peoples of the world from all the bogeymen, or even saving humankind or the planet itself. What our public servants are charged with, however, is preserving (saving) our constitutional republic.

Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old look like a mere amateur.

No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is “We the people.”

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional government. It is our duty to “throw off” any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our Constitution. And this we have not done.

Christian pastors and ministers have failed us. The “Religious Right” has failed us. College professors have failed us. High School teachers have failed us. Newspaper editors and publishers have failed us. TV news anchors and reporters have failed us. Parents have failed. Friends have failed. The two major political parties have failed. As a whole, no one is talking about, or even thinking about, the loss of constitutional government, national independence, and sovereignty. Few seem even conscious that this is taking place.

Worrying about which major party wins a general election is like worrying about whether Coke or Pepsi sold more soft drinks last month. Pick your poison. One is just as bad as the other. Neither has any fidelity to the Constitution or to the principles of liberty, which it represents. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are enemies to constitutional government. Both are in the process of sacrificing our national sovereignty to global entities. Both men lied when they took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. So, why should we care which impostor wins the election?

It is up to the American people to enforce constitutional government. From a Christian perspective, it is “We the people” who are the “powers that be” in Romans chapter 13. Under our form of government, the source of authority and the source of legitimacy reside with “We the people.” We are not the slaves of any king or despot. Our elected leaders are public servants, not private masters. In a nutshell, they work for us. They are contracted to preserve our liberties and our way of life. When they fail, they must answer to us.

So, when will the American people pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start acting like free citizens and stop groveling before these imbecilic political parties? When will we set this political house in order?

Of course, all of this demands that each of us understands constitutional government and the principles upon which liberty rests. It also demands that each of us be prepared to do whatever is our personal duty to preserve this republic.

Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin’s answer: “A republic–if you can keep it.”

Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers.

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080730.html

Texas Straight Talk by

Congressman Ron Paul

The Latin term “fiat” roughly translates to “there shall be”. When we refer to fiat money, we are referring to money that exists because the government declares it into existence. It is not based on production or earnings, and not backed by any commodity. It is solely based on trusting the government. Fiat money is exchanged in the economy as long as there is faith in the government that issues it.

Some are blaming the recent shakeup in the markets to “whining” or financial fear-mongering, which misses the whole point. History has shown that fiat money, or “faith-based currency” always fails, because when governments claim this power, they always behave irresponsibly.

When government has the ability to create and spend all the money it wants, priorities shift, and the concept of budgeting, as most Americans know it, loses all meaning. Hand a teenager a credit card, and tell him there is no limit and no accountability for what he spends, and the effect would be the same. You see, this problem is not unique to our government. It is a predictable outcome based on human nature, and we’ve seen variations of what we are experiencing now happen over and over throughout history. I didn’t have a crystal ball or a fortune teller when I predicted this 3, 7, or even 30 years ago. Actions have logical consequences. The government becomes the reckless teenager with the credit card, and in the end, the taxpaying citizens get the bill. What happens after that is never pretty.

This is why our founding fathers considered, but decidedly rejected the creation of a national central bank. They understood that governments, even the best of governments, cannot control spending. Even the current administration, which promised strict fiscal responsibility, has had to increase the national debt limit by 65 percent to keep up with its spending sprees. Every dollar created and spent by government makes the dollars in your pocket worth less and less. Eventually any currency controlled by government will be debased to worthlessness, and will wipe out the savings of the citizens who put faith in that currency.

Hard currencies, on the other hand, force governments to remain in check, strictly limited to the revenues they can raise from the country’s economic health. This is also an incentive for government to stay out of the way of productivity. The hyper-regulation in today’s economy demonstrates that this is no longer the case. What does it matter if the economy is crippled and the tax-base eroded, if government can create whatever dollars they need to keep the special interests happy?

We have been building economic castles on the sand, and the tide is coming in. The answer is not to bring in more sand, but to move to more solid foundation.

So yes, it is true that many are complaining about our economic trouble, but our economic trouble is not caused by their complaining. Many are being forced to wake up to the predictable troubles associated with faith-based currency. As more people notice the hardships, more will lose faith.

We are long overdue for a course correction and I can only hope that this awakening translates to a solid approach to currency reform.

by Chuck Baldwin
July 18, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Chuck Baldwin

Big Oil : 1
Congress : 0

Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats,
But Democrats Appear Hopeless
Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn’t as satisfactory as the
Democrats had hoped.The industry lineup was formidable:
Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.;
John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company;
Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation;
John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company;
Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.
One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out:
I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world’s available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible. Stephen Simon amplified:
Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th.
Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.
Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world’s oil, most of the
price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:
Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for
that crude oil, and so do we. Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States,
90 percent were purchased from others.
Another theme of the day’s testimony was that, if anyone is “gouging” consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers’ anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes. The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress’s responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell’s John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:
While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil
products to their nation’s consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations. Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market. According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt,
limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside
the United States to produce new supplies.
As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily con sumption comes from foreign
sources.
The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could
provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.
Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister
through the Democrats’ latest efforts to block energy independence:
HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we’re talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It’s fair to
say that they’re not considered part of America’s $22 billion of proven reserves.
HOFMEISTER: Not at all.
HATCH: No, but experts agree that there’s between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that’s good oil, isn’t it?
HOFMEISTER: That’s correct.
HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?
HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we’ve seen in the inflation…
HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.
HOFMEISTER: I don’t know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation
in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply
against the demand.
HATCH: I guess what I’m saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we
could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.
HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.
HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.
HOFMEISTER: Yes.
HATCH: But they’re stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where
Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.
HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in
this country are a disservice to the American consumer. The committee’s Democrats attempted no response. They
know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise eve n
further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country’s energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

By Betty Freauf
June 7, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

It will be all over the radio talk and television shows for days to come. It’s being written about on blogs and websites and in the mainline press. Yes, it’s all about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s book. He writes about the deception in the George W. Bush White House, but I ask, “So, what else is new?” Old snaggle-toothed Satan invented deception in the Garden of Eden, and Adam, would you believe, blamed the woman? Deception and blame have been around forever. (Rev. 12:7-9)

McClellan’s book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception has critics on both sides and all have come out swinging, lying and covering for their political friends. While some people are selling blood to buy gas, with the exception of a rare few, we have nearly all dipsticks in Washington, D.C.

Humanists believe everyone is basically good but our wise Founders knew better. They gave us a Constitution to put restraints on elected leaders of our Republic and as long as they stayed under the Constitution’s umbrella of protection and obeyed their oath of office, things would go well for our country. Ben Franklin said, “We’ve given you a Republic IF you can keep it.” The first great propaganda slogan for World War I was, “To make the world safe for democracy.” Deception. We should have been working to make the world safe FROM democracy! Author Arno Froese in his book, How Democracy Will Elect the Antichrist writes that it is striking to see that the Devil’s amazing master plan for deception is not only allowed by God, but even sealed by Him with the words: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie because they continuously refuse to listen to the truth and reject the love of Christ. (2 Thes. 2:11)

Perhaps one of the biggest lies began in the mid-1800s with the Civil War. History books have been written indicating it was to free the slaves but in actuality, it was the beginning of centralized government. I wrote this article, “The Constitution Has Been Under Attack Since Lincoln” in July 2003. As you read it in 2008, you’ll see that it was rather prophetic and what Lincoln did was similar to what President George W. Bush did after 9-11 to “secure our safety” by taking away our liberties – more deception. Wasn’t it amazing how soon after the Oklahoma City bombing and the attack on the World Trade Center that the crime scenes were cleaned up and the evidence hauled away? More deception.

From the Civil War, let’s fast forward to February 3, 1913, when the 16th Amendment (IRS) to the U.S. Constitution was allegedly ratified - more deception. Astute historians digging through the Archives found that the required number of states never properly ratified it. The super rich have tax-free foundations, so the IRS became the incredible bread machine, collecting taxes primarily from the Middle Class workers, through force and making businesses become the tax collectors.

Also in that same year, we found that when many Congressmen and Senators had left Washington, D.C. for the Christmas holiday, the unconstitutional Federal Reserve was created and what has happened to our money since — we no longer have gold or silver to back up our paper money – INFLATION! Essentials such as food prices are skyrocketing and gasoline prices are out of control. We have had boom and bust times, all manipulated by the Federal Reserve — a small group of unelected individuals that work completely in seclusion. Whoever controls the purse strings has a great deal of political influence and great power to shape the thinking of the voting public.

While people are learning about the international banking cartel called the Federal Reserve, how many know it was German-born financier Paul Warburg, who more than anyone, was the Fed’s actual architect? He remarked to Edward Manell House, the omnipresent adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, “Well, it hasn’t got quite everything we want, but the lack can be adjusted later by administrative process.” The author of the article says, “Here we had a classic example of getting something on the books that could later be made quietly more powerful.”[1]

This caused me to remember a May 1986 conference in Portland, Oregon entitled, “Oregon’s Agenda for the 1990’s: Children Youth and Families.” and the Federalization of Children by gradual child abductions . At that conference, one person recommended their draft should be “purposely vague” so that people don’t pay attention to it and they can “write in what they want later” and they “wanted to write things in a way that the conservatives wouldn’t know what they were doing….” Deception!

On April 18, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced his plan for AMERICA 2000, which would allow the federal government to play an even larger role in reforming public education, which had been especially failing the students since the creation of the centralized Department of Education under Democrat President Carter. It had been created at the behest of the National Education Association (N.E.A.) that is listed as a friend on the Communist Party USA’s website. Carter also delivered the environmentalists another unconstitutional agency called the Department of Energy.[2]

The government caused the problem in education and then they offer another failed solution.

Then along comes Bush Jr. with his “No Child Left Behind” and knowing full well the powerful N.E.A., with its paid lobbyists, fight to block the much needed genuine reforms. Educators have chosen quite consciously to de-emphasize the teaching of intellectual skills in favor of the inculcation of social awareness. Even Catherine Barrett, the former president of the N.E.A., stated in a March 1972 Saturday Review that “we will need to recognize that the so-called ‘basic skills,’ which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the school day.” The rest of the day is used for indoctrination – weaning the children from traditional Western values taught in their homes by most parents and moving away from retention of facts and teaching them to become more “tolerant” world citizens.

Dr. J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Theological Seminary testified before Congress on Feb. 25, 1926, opposing the creation of a Department of Education. This good man said that people are not like Ford cars — that they can be “standardized” and rolled off assembly lines and that the personal, free and individual character of education could not be preserved when we have a Federal Department laying down standards, which become more or less mandatory to the whole country. He felt it would be much easier to prevent the formation of some agency than it would be to try to destroy it after it is once formed.

Contrary to the drivel many conservative talk show hosts use for President Reagan’s election, one of the reasons he was elected was because he promised to eliminate the Department of Education. He not only allowed it to continue but he signed an education treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to merge the two education systems. Charlotte Iserbyt in her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America says the most important education agreements negotiated between The Carnegie Corporation and the Soviet Academy of Science, and those signed by President Reagan and Gorbachev in 1985, remain in effect to this day. Have you heard any of the conservative talk show hosts that think Reagan walked on water expose these agreements? Deception!

Joan Veon attends many U.N. meetings. She said in a March 20, 2003 Wisconsin Report that Reagan relied heavily on the tax-exempt Heritage Foundation, the “conservative” think tank used to bring in the foundational changes in the structure of government through privatization and Fabian Socialism. Many conservative talk show hosts also rely heavily on Heritage and are promoting the meeting that will be held after the November election in Washington, D.C. for elected officials. It’s founder, Paul Weyrich, also formed the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress – both groups were instrumental in setting up U.N. Regional Government. [3] Then there was the now defunct 26-member Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) that had a branch in every state capitol and was yet another force behind the change to U.N. Metropolitan Regional government, which broke the power of the state. [Raed] The ACIR was a mail order legislative mill created by Congress in 1959 and approved by Republican President Eisenhower. It prepared legislation to advance policies of the very rich. And you thought all those laws were the ideas of your elected officials? Deception! Check out Joan’s website.

Now let’s move into the spiritual realm where the communist ACLU deceived Christians into believing we had “separation of church and state” while all along, the Bible was being changed to emasculate the basic tenets of Christianity. The stock market is now more important than the Scriptures. Billy Graham and his friends have long disregarded doctrine and subsequent acceptance of every aberration that goes by the name of Christian; necessary for the eventual unification of all religious thought. Therefore, opposition to deception in the Church is being stifled under the pretense that those who expose deceivers are sowing discord among brethren and hindering unity, when in actuality, they are just trying to warn others.[4] The Lord said in the last days even the elect would be deceived.

Matthew 24 warns about false teachers and false “Christs” and even Oprah and friends are teaching a Course in Miracles on the New Age Christ. This is more deception but only a few would dare call Oprah, the richest woman in the world, a deceiver. But people are flocking to her Course on the radio and her TV show has been waning in popularity, but is still the top rated talk show. Allegedly polls show 86% of Americans believe in God, but I ask, “Which god?”

Even Mel Gibson, the producer of The Passion of Christ was surprised that so many evangelicals were receptive to his movie. He said, “The film is so Marian” (Catholic) and even though the “Marian and Eucharist Theme” were intentionally interwoven into the film, the evangelical leaders wanting “unity,” encouraged their Protestant followers to attend the movie. Martin Luther must have turned over in his grave.

Recently the Vatican’s chief astronomer, Father Jose Gabriel Funes, said there is a certain possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and that such notion “doesn’t contradict our faith.” On May 21, 1992, Henry Kissinger, an adviser to many presidents said, “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being, granted to them by their world government.” Deception.

Our Constitutional government and national sovereignty hang by a thread. The time could be approaching when the question will not be whether America can be saved but whether America is worth saving. Sodom and Gomorrah were not! We will not learn because we do not want to know. Visitors to Communist China questioning the false information they had given during the year of the great cultural revolution were told: “Yes, we deceived you, but you wanted to be deceived.” The goal of the Communists has always been encirclement of the United States and, ever so quietly, they are accomplishing that goal. Democrat President Carter gave them control of the Panama Canal. Democrat President Clinton arranged to make sure the Chinese got the Long Beach Naval Base on the west coast, just as he gave part of our beautiful Presidio to Mikhail Gorbachev’s Foundation. While Americans line China’s pockets by purchasing their goods, all the while helping to build up their military, we are basically buying the rope that will hang us! Ever so strategically, China is moving into a position to come against us. Mr. Clinton thought the U.S. and China would be part of a wonderful global alliance. Only in Clinton’s misguided and obviously confused dreams!

Footnotes:

1 - The New American Feb. 4, 2008 by John F. McManus
2 - A National Party No More (P.214) By Democrat Senator Zell Miller
3 - Washington Times Newspaper 10/24/84
4 - Book: Billy Graham and his Friends (P.465) By Dr. Cathy Burns

© 2008 Betty Freauf - All Rights Reserved

Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004 and joined the Constitutional Party.

E-Mail: bettyboot@wvi.com