By Chuck Baldwin
February 19, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

All of us are now aware of the Texas man who yesterday flew his private plane into a 7-story Austin office building. Apparently, he intentionally crashed his plane into the building to target the IRS offices that were housed inside the facility.

As I am writing this column just hours after the event took place, there has not yet been a lot of time for the major news media talking heads to spin the story. By the time this column is released on Friday, however, I'm sure we will all have been inundated with copious references to this man, Joe Stack, as being "off his rocker," or similar assertions. Perhaps our friends at DHS will label Stack a "right-wing domestic terrorist." However, Mr. Stack apparently left behind a "suicide manifesto" explaining his actions. After carefully reading Stack's manifesto, I am quite convinced that he was not crazy, and he was not a "terrorist." However, he was angry.

A lot of us are angry--and for many of the same reasons that Mr. Stack was angry! While I would certainly take exception to some of the things Stack says in his manifesto, he said things that many of us are feeling.

Stack began his manifesto by saying, "If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, 'Why did this have to happen?' The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time."

He goes on to say, "Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble [principles] represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was 'no taxation with representation' . . . These days anyone who really stands up for that [principle] is promptly labeled a 'crackpot,' traitor and worse."

For the most part, he's right about that, of course. It has been a long time since the average hardworking American has been represented in Washington, D.C. By and large, the politicians in DC represent only Big Money interests. Just try talking with your congressman or senator and see how much personal interest he or she takes in anything you have to say. As for emails, letters, and faxes, unless they number in the tens of thousands, they are mostly used as kindling for the fireplace.

Obviously, Mr. Stack had long felt the frustration of being ignored by these pimps in Washington that we know as congressmen. He wrote, "While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say."

I suppose that just about every American could say the same thing.

Then, regarding our current tax system, Stack wrote, "Here we have a [tax] system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly 'holds accountable' its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law 'requires' a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not 'duress' [then] what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is."

He also wrote, "However, this is where I learned that there are two 'interpretations' for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us."

However, I think a better way of putting his statement would have been, "There are two interpretations for every law; one for the GOVERNMENT, and one for the rest of us." And only the most naïve among us would not understand that statement.

According to Stack's manifesto, he earned an engineering degree with the goal of becoming an "independent engineer." He said this about working his way through college: "I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time."

I know that feeling! My wife and I married between my sophomore and junior years of college, and for months we had a grand total of $15 a week to spend on groceries. And believe me: that did not go very far--not even in 1974. How many politicians on Capitol Hill do you think could even remotely relate to Mr. Stack?

Stack later said, "I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself."

Wow! What a revolutionary idea: taking responsibility for yourself! Now I know that practically no one on Capitol Hill can relate to Mr. Stack!

After quoting a portion of the tax law relating to Section 1706 (Treatment of Certain Technical Personnel), Stack wrote, "The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave."

His manifesto clearly reveals bitterness and resentment toward the IRS, the tax system, the banker and Big Business government bailouts, and the emergence of police-state attitudes and actions in the aftermath of 9/11. He expressed disdain for "the monsters of organized religion." He talked about his move from California to Texas. He referred to a divorce and the way his savings and retirement had been wiped out after a career of working "100-hour workweeks."

Stack also noted, "The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government." I can say "Amen" to that.

Stack's conclusion: "I have had all I can stand."

In what was obviously a reference to what he was about to do, he wrote, "Nothing changes unless there is a body count."

Then, later he said, "But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at 'big brother' while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough."

Stack wrapped up his manifesto by saying, "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

See Joe Stack's manifesto here.

My heart goes out to Joe Stack! The sentiments expressed above are shared by millions of Americans who are also fed up with Big Brother. We are fed up with our country being turned into a burgeoning police state, under the rubric of "national security." We are fed up with the harassments of the IRS. We know the "war on drugs" is merely the government's way of cutting out the competition (this is exactly what more than one retired federal law enforcement agent--employed in the drug war--told me). We know the "war on terror" is nothing but an excuse to trample our constitutional liberties. We are fed up with the voracious vampires known as the Federal Reserve sucking the lifeblood out of the veins of America's hardworking Middle Class. We are tired of the CFR, CIA, and America's State Department manufacturing perpetual wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives for the benefit of the global elite. We are fed up with an arrogant and oppressive federal government that is strangling the life and freedom out of our states. We all share Joe Stack's pain!

I really wish Joe Stack had not killed himself, however. We need each other. By taking his life, he reduced our strength. The global elites delight in our demise. As we grow weaker, they grow stronger.

But the fight is not over; the battle is not lost! Rumblings of freedom's revival can be felt across the length and breadth of this nation. The clanging of liberty's resolve can be heard in hamlets and villages from Montana to South Carolina. There are still millions of us--from virtually every walk of life--who will not surrender our liberties without a fight! And we have not yet begun to fight!

So, to the rest of us Joe Stacks out there: let's not fly our planes into buildings. Let's not end our lives prematurely. Instead, get mad; get organized; get educated; start equipping your heart, mind, and body for the battle ahead. Let's fight; let's study; let's prepare; let's make every would-be tyrant on Capitol Hill and Wall Street know that we are not going to sit back and let them steal our country. Let's send a message, in no uncertain terms, that if they want our pound of flesh, they are going to have to come and get it--and if they do, it's going to cost them a whole lot more than a pound of theirs!

Oh, Joe! I wish you had not killed yourself.

By Chuck Baldwin

From the writings of Columbus to the Mayflower Compact, to the Declaration of Independence, America's founders clearly and articulately enshrined bedrock Christian principles in the foundation of this country.

For example, in explaining the purpose of his journey that led to the discovery of the new world, Christopher Columbus said, "It was the Lord who put into my mind--I could feel His hand upon me--the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies . . . All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me . . . There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . . For the execution of the journey to the Indies I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied . . . No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His Holy service . . . the fact that the Gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time--this is what convinces me." (Source: Columbus' Book of Prophecies)



Our pilgrim fathers wrote in the Mayflower Compact, "In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten . . . Having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith . . . a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia."

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson invokes our Creator-God no less than four times. In fact, Jefferson predicates the Declaration on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and concludes the Declaration with an appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions" and with "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

Attorney and author, John Whitehead, in his book, The Separation Illusion, rightly noted, "In 1892, the United States Supreme Court made an exhaustive study of the supposed connection between Christianity and the government of the United States. After reviewing hundreds of volumes of historical documents, the Court asserted, 'These references . . . add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a religious people . . . a Christian nation.' Likewise, in 1931, Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland reviewed the 1892 decision in reference to another case and reiterated that Americans are a 'Christian people.' And in 1952, Justice William O. Douglas affirmed that 'we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'"

Accordingly, our U. S. Constitution is dated: (1) from the birth of Christ, and (2) from the birth of our independence (Article. VII.). Secondly, the Constitution requires the President and Congress to respect "the Christian Sabbath" (Sunday) as a day "excepted" from governmental business (Article. I. Section. 7.). Thirdly, the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, the federal government has no right to interfere with the free expression of religion (by individuals or States) in any shape, manner, or form. Fourthly, Article. VI. of the Constitution prohibits any religious test as a qualification for public office.

The intent of the Constitution's framers was, therefore, in the matter of religion (especially the Christian religion, whose adherents birthed America), that the federal government would maintain a healthy respect for it, and keep its hands off. For the last several years, however, instead of respecting religion--especially the Christian religion--the leaders of our federal government have increasingly demonstrated animosity, and even hostility, toward both the Christian faith and Christian people.

While claiming to be "tolerant" and "pluralistic," our federal government, in practice, shows little tolerance or pluralism regarding Christianity. Time and again, Christian practices and people are singled out for humiliation, persecution, or retribution. This situation follows an eerily similar pattern to that of the old Holy Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire loved to tout its tolerance for any and all faith systems. One common adage at the time was that "there are as many gods in Rome as people." So tolerant was Rome for myriad religious beliefs that it even constructed an altar to the "UNKNOWN GOD," for fear that it may have neglected to honor someone's obscure god.

Why was it, then, that the Roman Empire took delight in publicly persecuting, torturing, and executing Christians? What happened to tolerance? What happened to pluralism? In direct contravention of its own laws and policies, Rome singled out Christianity for public repudiation. And that is exactly what the U.S. government is currently doing. I'll say it outright: the U.S. government has become patently anti-Christian.

In spite of Constitutional requirements to keep its hands off religious liberty, the U.S. government routinely singles out Christian practices for public repudiation. For years now, federal judges have demanded that local schools (under the jurisdiction of local and state governments) prohibit prayers or Bible reading.

Does anyone find it a little interesting that all over America, while Christian students are denied the right to pray or read the Bible in public schools, Muslim students are not only allowed to pray in public schools, but are also often provided special prayer rooms within the schools so that those students may leave their classrooms and pray? In fact, in some school districts, if the Muslim prayer time interferes with a student's tests, the student is many times free to make up the test in order that he or she may be faithful to the prayer meeting. Of course, the reading of the Koran is also included in the Muslim's prayer time. All of this is done with the full knowledge and blessing of the U.S. government (and the ACLU, by the way), including the myriad federal courts--courts that are always "fast on the draw" to squash any and all attempts by Christians to pray or read their Bibles in public schools.

And it is not just the Muslim religion that meets with the approval of the U.S. government. Federal courts find no fault in public school students observing Kwanzaa, celebrating the pagan holiday of Halloween, or engaging in various eastern religious practices such as Hindu meditation. At least one school district in Utah has allowed Tibetan monks to conduct Tantric Buddhist devotionals in its public schools. At least two schools in California have even introduced New Age curricula honoring Lucifer to their students. Basically, any and all religious beliefs are condoned and tolerated by the U.S. government--every belief system except Christianity, that is.

In addition, how many local or State courts have been ordered by federal judges to remove any and all copies of the Ten Commandments or other scriptural references from their buildings? How many local governments have been ordered by federal judges to remove any and all Nativity or Manger scenes from their properties? How many chaplains have been ordered to remove Bibles from soldiers, sailors, or Marines? How many Bibles have been destroyed by orders from military commanders? How many prisoners or detainees have been denied Bibles (even when requested) by order of military brass? How many military officers have been overlooked for promotion (and thus drubbed out of military service) for not being willing to surrender their Christian convictions to "sensitivity" or "diversity" training (a euphemism for homosexual brainwashing)? How many times has the U.S. government quietly looked the other way when Christian people have been slaughtered en masse? (Can anyone say, "Sudan"?) How many Christian chaplains in the armed forces have been ordered to not pray in Jesus' name? How many pro-life Christians have been targeted by federal police agencies for special scrutiny? How many sheriffs' offices (run and managed by Christian law enforcement officers) have been denied federal funds for not submitting to a variety of repulsive policies mandated by the federal government?

Then there is this AP story: "Iraq has lost more than half the Christians who once called it home, mostly since the war began, and few who fled have plans to return." The report continued, saying, "The number of Arab Christians has plummeted across the Mideast in recent years as increasing numbers seek to move to the West, saying they feel increasingly unwelcome in the Middle East and want a better life abroad.

"But the exodus has been particularly stark in Iraq--where sectarian violence since the U.S.-led 2003 invasion has often targeted Christians.

"The AP found that hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled." (Source: The Associated Press, Thursday, May 14, 2009)

To highlight the AP report, in 1987, there were 1.4 million Christians in Iraq. Now there are fewer than 400,000. For all of Saddam Hussein's sins, persecution of Christians was not one of them. Under Hussein's regime, Christians, for the most part, led a persecution-free existence--something extremely rare in Muslim countries. In fact, Saddam Hussein even had Christians serving in his administrative cabinet.

Enter the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Since removing Saddam Hussein, the U.S. government has installed an Islamic puppet government, which has resulted in the persecution of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians.

I hope all the evangelical Christians who continue to support George W. Bush and his unconstitutional, preemptive invasion of Iraq are paying attention. I hope all my Christian friends who kept trumpeting the unconstitutional policies of President Bush, "because he is a Christian," are paying attention. I really wish that James Dobson and his ilk would have been as outraged at the unconstitutional (not to mention unchristian) policies of the former Republican President as they are the current Democratic President, because, for all intents and purposes, the federal government is functioning in exactly the same way under one as it did under the other.

Whether domestically or internationally, the U.S. government is obviously committed to an anti-Christian agenda. Where the federal government once respected Christianity and vowed to not interfere with the faith and practices of Christian people, it has now become an archenemy of religious liberty. With virtually every constitutional safeguard being violated by the modern federal government, about all that is left is for the constitutional prohibition of government business being conducted on Sundays to be expunged. Don't be surprised, therefore, when federal courts begin mandating that public schools require students to attend class on the Lord's Day.

If we are to restore the principles of religious liberty, it will be necessary for State governments--and for Christian people in particular--to stand united against an ever-growing, ever-menacing federal leviathan that is intent on destroying the safeguards and foundations of a once-proud constitutional republic, which was, after all, rooted and founded upon Christian principles.

By Chuck Baldwin

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.



The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'"

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

By Chuck Baldwin

Many patriotic Americans, including many retired and former military personnel, are increasingly chagrined at the direction the U.S. armed forces are taking. For one thing, there were numerous instances in the Clinton and both Bush administrations when American GIs were required to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Does anyone remember the Michael New case? How can any American GI, who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, willingly surrender himself to a foreign commander, flag, or uniform? That is a potential conflict that has caused many to question modern military service.

Another potential moral conflict in modern military service (at least for Christians) is the inter-sex training and quartering that is now required in every branch of military service (except the Marine Corps). To put healthy young adults of the opposite sex in such close and, many times, compromising environments is more than problematic for those wishing to stay morally pure. (Christian parents should know that many state colleges and universities now require students to live in coed dorms, including using coed bathrooms and showers.) Add to this President Barack Obama's determination to expunge the Department of Defense's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, thereby allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military. All of the above has many Christians questioning the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to today's U.S. military.



Another disconcerting element of modern military service is the reality that today's American military is more and more being used as the tool of globalists to forge an international New World Order. For instance, both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations will send U.S. military personnel (including the National Guard) to guard the borders of foreign countries, but never ask them to protect our own borders. Sending the National Guard overseas, especially, strains the principles of constitutional government. But maybe that explains why we have so many foreign troops on U.S. soil. After all, did President George W. Bush not ask foreign troops to monitor our borders and skies in the weeks and months following the attacks on 9/11?

Using U.S. troops as international "peacekeepers" only serves the interests of the international New World Order; it has nothing to do with protecting the lives and property of the American people. In fact, an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States. Accordingly, many Christian parents are hesitant to give their children to modern military service.

If all of the above is not enough, we read this story from Reuters and One News Now: "The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

"Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty--including those based in places like Afghanistan--from trying to convert people to another religion.

"Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source: OneNewsNow.com, 5/5/09)

For any Christian, this episode highlights a very serious conflict of duty. Any genuine Christian must take his Lord's command to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" very seriously. In fact, how can any Christian not witness to others--whoever they are--of Christ's redeeming grace? To refuse to do so amounts to willful rejection of Christ, in which case, it is doubtful that genuine salvation is even present.

Therefore, how can a Christian dutifully obey his Savior and Lord on the one hand, while, at the same time, obeying a military order forbidding him or her from "trying to convert people"? And how could any genuine Christian chaplain willingly confiscate and DESTROY God's Holy Word? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe even Adolf Hitler burned Bibles. He burned a lot of books, but I've never read that he burned God's Word.

Now, no one has more respect and admiration for military personnel than I do. My dad and his two brothers proudly served their country in World War II. One brother served in the U.S. Marines and was wounded in the Pacific. The other served in the Navy, and Dad was selected to work on the Atomic Bomb. I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Gulf War I, and some of my closest friends are former, retired, or active-duty military.

I feel the same way about law enforcement personnel. In my youth, law enforcement was my chosen career. Some of my dearest friends are either retired or active-duty law enforcement officers. It is a noble profession.

We have to be honest enough to admit, however, that both the U.S. military and many of our law enforcement agencies are being co-opted by a politically correct leadership that is in the process of changing the rules of conduct--not to mention the rules of engagement.

Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home.

When we have federal police agents, with no justification or authority, brutally beating an innocent pastor; when FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights; when U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders; when U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen; when military chaplains are ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles; and when soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith; then it is apparent that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better.

It is for good reason that many Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) are looking twice at modern military service. In fact, a retired high-ranking military officer (whose name I will not divulge) recently told me, "Chuck, there is no way I could recommend that anyone volunteer in the U.S. military today."

Obviously, we have a host of honorable men and women of sound character and conviction still serving in both the U.S. military and in various law enforcement agencies. Thank God!

It is also obvious, however, that the powers that be are quickly "remaking" (to use Barack Obama's word) our military and law enforcement agencies into an image never desired or designed by America's Founding Fathers. Thus, the conflict between good men and bad policies will only worsen. And many will continue to question the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to modern military service.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that it is at such a time as this that good men are all the more needed in the U.S. military and in law enforcement. That is a very valid argument, by the way: as long as those good men realize what they will be required to risk when their superiors order them to surrender allegiance to the Constitution or to sacred principle. But then again, we are all required to share in that risk, are we not?

By Chuck Baldwin

I will celebrate my 57th birthday this Sunday, May 3. Accordingly, it is time for my annual "Strictly Personal" column. I think it only fair that readers should have an opportunity to learn a little something about the person who writes the words they read. Today's column is designed with that goal in mind. And since Charley Reese stopped writing, I am the only syndicated columnist that does this, as far as I know. So, here goes.

I was born in a small town in northern Indiana. My father and mother were dedicated Christians. Dad was a welder by trade and a lay jailhouse preacher. The Lord delivered him from a terrible life of alcoholism, and the story of his deliverance is nothing short of miraculous.



Readers should know that I will send a cassette tape or CD of my father's life story, free of charge, to anyone who requests it. If you (or someone you know) struggle with alcohol or drug addiction, I urge you to obtain a copy of this remarkable story. Go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/edbald.html

The Baldwins in my clan were all Southern Democrats (from Arkansas), and so I grew up a Democrat. When Ronald Reagan ran for President, however, I registered as a Republican. Of course, I am now an Independent affiliated with the Constitution Party.

I am convinced that, at the national level, the two major parties are two peas in a pod or, as Pat Buchanan calls them, "two wings of the same bird of prey." In my opinion, both parties are willfully surrendering our constitutional liberties, our independence, and our national sovereignty.

The Constitution Party web site is located at:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

In fact, I was honored to have been selected by the Constitution Party as their candidate for President last year. I was further honored to have received the public endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul during that campaign. My summary of the 2008 campaign can be viewed at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090106.html

Outside of the decision to trust Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, the decision to marry my wife, Connie, is the greatest decision I ever made. She is wonderful! We will celebrate our 36th wedding anniversary next month. She has borne me three terrific children of whom I could not be prouder.

Our oldest child, Sarah Beth, is married to Allan Baker, a structural engineer. They reside in Pensacola and have three children. Our oldest son, Christopher, owns his own plumbing construction business here in Pensacola. He and his wife, Jana, have three sons. Our youngest son, Timothy, was a felony prosecutor with the Florida State Attorney's office. Along with his wife, Jennifer, he now owns his own law firm.

Readers should also know that Tim has an excellent legal review of the Patriot Act posted on our web site. Read it at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/TimBaldwin.htm

I believe in the primacy of the local New Testament Church. I have been privileged to serve as the Senior Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, for nearly thirty-four years now. See the church web site at:

http://www.crossroadbaptist.net/

Readers should be aware that we are also live-streaming my Sunday morning messages each Sunday at approximately 10:30 a.m. Central Time. To watch these messages, go to:

http://crossroadbaptist.net/live.html

I have hosted my own radio programs for more than thirty years. In fact, this column is the outgrowth of my radio talk show, Chuck Baldwin Live. Here is the web address:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/

Currently, my radio programs are aired 49 times a week, on 15 different stations, in 5 states. The radio log is located at:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Radio_Schedule.html

My personal philosophy regarding social/political issues is quite simple: I believe abortion is America's national holocaust. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human life. Furthermore, it is absolutely disgraceful that while the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire federal government (legislative, executive, and judicial) from 2001 to 2006, they did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade. All they had to do was pass Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life bill; but instead they squandered 6 years of opportunity--an opportunity that may never come again. The GOP's dereliction in this regard is unforgivable.

I believe marriage is, by definition, only between a man and a woman.

I believe the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights to be the greatest civil documents ever devised by man. I believe America's Founding Fathers to be the greatest generation of Christian philosophers and patriots to ever live.

I believe the current attempts by politicians from both parties to ignore and violate the Constitution are unconscionable and draconian attacks against the liberties of the American people and should be vehemently resisted.

I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government, Big Business, and academia to surrender America's independence and national sovereignty to a globalist New World Order. I believe the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergers are especially culpable in this regard.

I believe many, if not most, pastors today have become little more than glorified politicians; and I am very disappointed in the way today's national Christian leaders (the so-called Religious Right) seem to grovel before political parties and personalities, which appears to be for the express purpose of obtaining political and financial benefit.

I further believe that the current effort to merge the United States into a North American Community, along with the sister-issues of the NAFTA superhighway and the push to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, comprises a grave threat to America. I am also convinced that there is a bold and blatant attempt underfoot to turn the United States into a police-state-style surveillance society, in which personal freedoms are being quickly and egregiously sacrificed.

I opposed the preemptive invasion of Iraq, and I continue to oppose the occupation of that country. I believe the Barack Obama administration is doing nothing--and will do nothing--to change the perpetual war/preemptive war doctrine introduced by George W. Bush.

I opposed the bailouts for Wall Street. I oppose the Federal Reserve and believe it to be an unconstitutional, unjust, and evil system of economics that is at the heart of all of America's financial (and many of our international) woes. I wholeheartedly support the abolition of the Federal Reserve and a return to sound money.

I believe the American people have more to fear from Washington, D.C., than they do from Baghdad or Tehran. I believe the United Nations is a sinister organization from which the United States should withdraw. I believe the federal government taxes too much, spends too much, lies too much, and snoops too much into the personal lives of the American people.

Besides Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and the Constitution Party, the only organizations to which I belong are Gun Owners of America and The National Rifle Association. I especially support GOA, as it is the only Second Amendment advocacy group that refuses to compromise for the sake of political correctness.

See GOA's web site at:

http://www.gunowners.org/

In my view, the best news magazine in the country is The New American. I enthusiastically recommend that every American read it. Here is their web site:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/

I supported Ron Paul in the Republican Presidential primary last year, and I continue to support his efforts through the Campaign for Liberty. Here is their web site:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

I don't trust most of the major radio or television talk show hosts, but observe that Lou Dobbs seems to have more honesty and integrity than the rest. Consider: he was the only major network television talk show host that invited me to be a guest on his show during last year's Presidential campaign. That says a lot!

If I have any hobbies, they would be hunting and freshwater fishing, although I don't get to do either as much as I would like. I am probably what people would call a workaholic. In addition, I am a firm believer in healthy eating and exercise.

Well, there it is. That is me in a nutshell. At least now you know more about who I am. You can rest assured that everything I write will be faithful to the beliefs mentioned above.

And there is one more thing: during the month of May only, I will send a full-size color photograph of yours truly to everyone who sends a one-time financial donation of $25 or more to help me continue to produce these columns and keep this freedom effort afloat. In fact, I will send one photo for each $25 contribution. For example, if you send $50, you will receive two photos.

To see the photo that will be sent, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/CB-photo.php

The recession has hurt all of us; and it has affected the income necessary to maintain these columns as well. If you appreciate my work and want to help me continue to advance the cause of liberty and constitutional government, I could really use your help right now. You may use your Visa or MasterCard, or you may write a personal check or Money Order. Here is the link to donate:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/CB-photo.php

Remember, this offer expires on May 31, 2009.

Thank you for helping me in any way you can, and thank you for reading and passing on my columns.