Kevin Craig for Congress: Search results for baldwin

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query baldwin. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 28, 2008

Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party

The Constitution Party has turned away Alan Keyes and nominated Chuck Baldwin for President.

Google video: Chuck Baldwin Accepts Nomination of the Constitution Party 2008

I have quoted or linked to Chuck Baldwin's columns, which I generally enjoy, but I think the Constitution Party has made a mistake. Alan Keyes would have made a better candidate in the year of Barack Obama than a white southern preacher will. The Constitution Party wan't going to win no matter who they nominated; this year it's all about media exposure. "Major political party nominates black former Ambassador for President" is news; "Constitution Party nominates white fundy preacher for President" is not news. True, Keyes lost to Obama in Illinois, and the media doesn't like Keyes' message any more than Baldwin's, but the CP is now going to be written off as "the good ol' boy party."

Here's a video of Alan Keyes produced by Mike Ferguson at Missouri Viewpoints just after he lost the nomination:

Keyes, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, apparently got dumped by the Constitution Party in part because he still supports the United Nations in some way. (I'm only reading between the lines in the video; haven't read any other accounts of the CP convention procedings.) I think Keyes makes a good point in this interview: that America cannot be "isolationist" -- something the CP probably tends to be.

I've criticized Alan Keyes for his egotism, and in the video above he starts off with a lot of me-centered whining about not getting the nomination. But he's a better orator than Chuck Baldwin, even though some people call him "rude."

Pledge for America's Revival :: AlanKeyes.com

I like a lot of things Chuck Baldwin says, but given a choice between Baldwin and Bob Barr, I think I might go with Barr even though Barr (so far as I know) makes no claim to be a Christian or a defender of America as a Christian nation. I like the pro-Christian rhetoric of the Constitution Party. But Baldwin's (and the CP's) position on immigration is unChristian and unConstitutional, with emphasis on the "unChristian" part. And because Baldwin explicitly campaigns as a Christian and a pastor, this makes his position on immigration more offensive to me -- I don't want non-Christians to conclude that Christians are anti-immigrant and pro-INS, and I would rather support a "secular" candidate like Bob Barr than a candidate who might give the wrong impression because he openly acknowledges his Christian commitments. But I'll have to think more about this decision between now and November.

(I'm sorry; the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service, aka "la migra"] is now part of Homeland Security, and is called the "USCIS.)

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Baldwin's Blunder

I like Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party nominee for President. I've quoted him several times, and I haven't ruled out voting for him rather than Bob "Your Papers, Please" Barr.

But Baldwin's latest column is badly misguided.

He quotes Martin Luther's great line:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Then Baldwin makes this surprising chain of assertions:

the real battlefield today is not abortion. It is not homosexual marriage. It is not Social Security. It is not al Qaeda. It is not taxes. It is not inflation. It is not electing conservatives. It is not posting the Ten Commandments. It is not even the high cost of gasoline. That is not to say that those issues are not important and not deserving of our best efforts and attention, because they are. But those issues do not represent the major battlefield today.

As I was reading these words, I was racking my brain trying to think what the major battlefield of the day was, if none of the above. I was shocked by Baldwin's answer:

The battlefield where the devil has amassed his greatest forces and is thrusting his deadliest armies is the surrender of our national sovereignty and independence, and the creation of global government.

To his credit, unlike Phyllis Schlafly, Baldwin is able to tell the truth about Bush:

before Bush was a Republican, before he was a "conservative," before he was a Christian, he was and is a globalist, as was his father and grandfather before him.

Relying on Jerome Corsi's investigations, Baldwin warns of the promises Bush made in March of 2005 in the "Security and Prosperity Partnership," which I have written about many times before. There can be no doubt that the European Union is a model for US-Mexican-Canadian convergence in a "North American Union" of some kind.

But why is this worse than the murder of 50 million children, the destruction of the family, the $83 trillion bankruptcy of America, or the secularization of American Law?

What if Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution for a "North American Union" in which the regional government had no jurisdiction over abortion, homosexuality, marriage, retirement planning, healthcare, home loans, or a thousand other policy issues? What if the regional government of North America were not a secular government, but a Christian libertarian Theocracy?

Gary North explains why Baldwin is not a visionary Christian statesman, but just another conservative nationalist:

There were no passports in the West before 1914. Few Western nations had rigorous immigration laws. There was also no mass democracy or socialism. People who would obey the laws and work hard were seen as a benefit. But mass democracy and the rise of socialist ideology changed all that. With the progressive income tax came immigration barriers in every nation. The welfare State is illiberal with regard to work-oriented immigrants. To the extent that welfare State thinking has become common among Christians, they too have adopted the closed-border mentality.

The sovereignty of the nation is the modern substitute for the divine right of kings and legislatures. It was a doctrine asserted by the French revolutionaries in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" in 1789. Point three declares: "The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no individual may exercise authority not emanating from it." Nationalism has since become a major ideology in the modern world. It lodges absolute sovereignty in the nation.

The danger with this is the danger of proclaiming absolute sovereignty for any human institution. When this is done, then men are tempted to overcome its supposedly final judgment through violence. Revolution, terrorism, and military conquest become both the justification and the means of replacing one absolute earthly sovereign with another. The doctrine of "divine right" leads to the doctrine of "might makes right."

The Biblical doctrine is opposed to all theories of divine right. God is absolutely sovereign, and all [legitimate] human sovereignties [if any] are delegated by Him. All human sovereignties are under God's law, and God's law is always administered by agencies -- not by one single agency, but by plural agencies. There must always be a legal and institutional check and balance on every human agency. Furthermore, there will always be an institutional check: big bullies eventually encounter bigger bullies or an alliance of defenders. But for the sake of peace, there should be legal checks that invoke lawful, predictable, and legitimate restraints on unwarranted power. Checks and balances are basic to Christian liberty.

This is why the political conservative's rejection of international law and international justice is misguided, if this rejection is based on permanent principle rather than temporary tactics. In an era such as ours -- an era of legal chaos and competing national religions -- nationalism is a legitimate check on the expansion of humanist empires, but if conservatism's intellectual defense of national sovereignty is made in terms of an absolute and permanent national sovereignty, then the defender has adopted one more version of the divine rights doctrine: the divine right of autonomous nations. Only Jesus Christ possesses divine rights, yet He graciously humbled Himself to be judged by a pagan imperial court for the sake of the world.

All institutions are under God's law. God's laws are to be enforced institutionally. No one can legitimately claim divine rights, a claim of locating a final, unitary, earthly court of appeal beyond which there can be no earthly appeal.

Christ's victory at Calvary in principle reclaimed the ownership of the whole earth from Satan, and it legally transferred this certificate of ownership to God's people. The certificate of ownership is the New Testament itself. The New Testament is a covenant: a legal document. It assigns the inheritance to God's adopted sons (John 1:12). The boundaries of this nation of nations in principle are the whole earth. Though sin will restrict a perfect working out in history of these boundaries, the goal of Christians all over the world should be to work toward this goal: the creation of a formally covenanted confederation of Christian nations under God. God's kingdom must triumph in history over Satan's kingdom. Christ's nation of nations must triumph over Satan's empire of empires.

Some critics may complain that I am calling for international theocracy. They are correct, for this international theocracy is exactly what the Bible requires.

Baldwin criticizes the "Religious Right" for grovelling before President Bush and the Republicans. From whom is Baldwin seeking approval?

Eventually the concept of "national sovereignty" will be abandoned. The sooner the better.

-----=====******O******=====-----

Stop The SPP
The SPP Coup d'Etat
Canadians Against SPP
SPP Deception
More SPP Deception
Rep. Ron Paul on SPP
More Canadian Opposition to SPP
SPP = European Union
SPP Destroying Evidence?
Anti-SPP Resolution in Congress

Gary North's books are free at freebooks.com

Friday, May 02, 2008

Immigration: Where in the Constitution?

Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party nominee for President, has released a column entitled, "If I Were President." On immigration, he says:

If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.

The Constitution Party claims to be both Christian and Constitutional. This position on immigration is neither.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for giving work to a citizen of another country?

It's not there.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish someone for being a member of "a gang."

It's not there.

And what exactly is Baldwin's problem with "anchor babies?" Doesn't this concept go back to Blackstone?:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

Does Baldwin propose to take us back to the glorious days when the king of France could seize all the property of anchor babies upon their death?

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to issue visas and passports?

It's not in there.

Baldwin's nationalist position is contrary to a libertarian position of a global gold standard and free movement of people and capital.

Globalization and Monetary Policy (Southwest Economy, July/Aug 2005 - Federal Reserve Board Dallas) (see the quote at the bottom by John Maynard Keynes)

Unfortunately, Baldwin's perspective has been picked up to some extent by the Libertarian Party.

Immigration and the LP Platform

Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform

Above all, Baldwin's anti-immigrant position is unChristian.

If we're facing a judgment, it's because we have repudiated the original ideals of America, as well as clear Biblical principles.

America's laws were built on God's Laws: The Ten Commandments and "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" sum up the whole of America's foundation: the Bible. The immigration policies of all the major parties -- including third parties like the Constitution Party -- ignore America's Biblical foundation. Immigration is a huge theme in the Bible.. You may remember it from your Sunday School class: Israel emigrated to Egypt during a famine, had favorable status under one Pharaoh, but was oppressed by a later Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph," and Israel became in a sense "illegal aliens" in Egypt. There was a great Exodus, after which God reminded Israel:

Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19

So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Ezekiel 47:21-22

Many more passages could be cited throughout the Bible. Evangelical treatment of aliens is a major Biblical theme, and even the Constitution Party misses it! David Chilton, in his book Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, has done a fine job of summarizing Biblical law on this issue. Baldwin probably should read that link.

America's Founding Fathers abolished the king. In principle, the "consent of the governed" abolished the nation-state. The ultimate in "consent" is a Free Market, "laissez-faire capitalism," where everyone votes with his wallet or his feet. The "New Order of the Ages" was a Christian world of international liberty; globalization in which every one dwells safely under his own vine & fig tree.

Isaac Watts, whose hymnal shaped America, understood this vision of Christian globalism, and set Psalm 72 to meter and paraphrased it as follows:

Jesus shall reign where'er the Sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till suns shall rise and set no more.

The heathen lands, that lie beneath
The shades of overspreading death,
Revive at his first dawning light;
And deserts blossom at the sight.

The saints shall flourish in his days,
Decked in the robes of joy and praise;
Peace, like a river, from his throne
Shall flow to nations yet unknown.

With power he vindicates the just,
And treads the oppressor in the dust:
His worship and his fear shall last
Till the full course of time be past.

Notice that this time of global Christianity is not in eternity, but in time, in history, as the sun still journeys. This is our goal now, not after we've been "raptured."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said a legislator should vote NO on any bill if

the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

Madison would say that The Constitution Party position on immigration reeks of an "unChristian timidity" where it should be bold, as well as a fascist boldness where it should be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution."

Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional

The Constitution Party is to be praised for not buckling under the pressure to secuarlize all things. I admire its desire to be explicitly Christian. But the Constitution Party is also hostile to globalism, and is willing to empower the federal government to stop it. I alluded to this here. The Libertarian Party does not claim to be Christian, but it empowers the State with fewer unconstitutional obstacles in the path of the global reign of Christ than the Constitution Party does. For this reason, I am a Libertarian.

Ozarks Virtual Town Hall - June 23, 2007

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Statism on the State Level

As a candidate for U.S. Congress, I try to keep up on goings-on in Washington D.C. Chuck Baldwin, former Presidential Candidate for the Constitution Party, has (unwittingly) reminded me that I need to keep an eye on state and local governments as well.

"Statism" is the worship of the State, the belief that the machinery of civil government can bring salvation. Is Chuck Baldwin a statist? You be the judge:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091218.html
Anger With Federal Government Not Enough
by Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2009

The Title of this article might lead us to think that what we need is anger with state and local governments as well. But noooo.

I'm old enough to remember when giving the Panama Canal away was opposed by virtually everyone outside the Beltway. It changed nothing. Jimmy Carter and Congress gave it away, anyway. Most people oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So what? Our troops are not only still there, but more are on the way. Most people believe children should be allowed to pray and read the Bible in school. So what? They still are forbidden from doing so. Most people believed former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had the right to post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. So what? He was forced to take them down, anyway (and removed from office in the process). I could go on, but you get the point.

As a card-carrying "Theocrat," I agree that nobody who signed the Constitution intended to give the federal government power to remove the Ten Commandments from all public buildings.

Washington, D.C., is too far gone to salvage. Admit it! Washington is a cesspool, a landfill, and a putrid pond of corruption and duplicity. Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party will ever allow a principled constitutionalist to become its Presidential nominee. No matter whom we elect as President, the beat toward Big-Government socialism and one-world internationalism will go on without interruption. Big Government scalawags own the entire federal system, including Big Media, Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion, and Big Special Interest Groups. They are all feeding at the government teat.

I agree.
We should abolish the federal government entirely. Just like the Declaration of Independence says we have a duty to do under conditions like these.

Therefore, it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties. And, as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! And awakening to this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.

Anybody who says any branch or any party or any level of government "defends liberty" doesn't understand the core of the American vision. True Americans believe that "the Government" is the greatest threat to liberty.

America's Founding Fathers believed that the institution of "civil government" was a necessity, even one commanded by God. Creating "the government" was thus an act of religious obedience. But they misread the Bible. They were products of their time.

Still, they recognized the danger of the State, and the Constitution is evidence of this. They believed they needed "checks and balances," "separation of powers," and a Bill of Rights to guard against the greatest threat to our liberties: government itself.
Government does not DEFEND our liberties!
Government is the ENEMY of Liberty.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution defend our liberties AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

If we had more State legislators such as Washington State's Matthew Shea; Georgia's Bobby Franklin; Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer; New Hampshire's Dan Itse; Michigan's Paul Opsommer; Oklahoma's Randy Brogdon, Sally Kern and Charles Key; Montana's Rick Jore, Greg Hinkle, and Joel Boniek; Tennessee's Susan Lynn; South Carolina's Michael Pitts and Lee Bright; Missouri's Jim Guest and Cynthia Davis; and sheriffs such as South Carolina's Ray Nash, Arizona's Richard Mack and Joe Arpaio, Montana's Jay Printz and Shane Harrington, etc., it wouldn't matter what those nincompoops inside the Beltway do. The federal government cannot violate your rights and steal your freedoms without the consent and approbation of your State government.

"Nincompoops" don't frighten me as much as fascists.
I have to admit I don't know all these politicians. But I have read some horrifying things about a few of them. Sheriff Arpaio for one. Please see this link:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/search?q=arpaio

Please see that link.

Although I agree with Chuck Baldwin on the issue of the Ten Commandments, I disagree with him on the issues of immigration and the War on Drugs. Libertarians should be terrified by people like Arpaio and other state-level conservatives who are willing to use massive violence and military power to stop drug-users and day-laborers.

And while I agree that the federal government did not have constitutional authority to de- segregate the South, the State-level politicians who used violence against blacks were thugs, and dangerous threats to EVERYONE's liberties, and unconstitutional federal intervention may have brought about the most libertarian result.

Is Baldwin moving us ahead to a libertarian future, or taking us back to the pre-Civil Rights south?

If conservatives/constitutionalists/libertarians would spend as much time and energy influencing elections and policies at the State and local levels as they attempt to do at the national level, we could turn this floundering ship of state around. If he had the support and backing of his State's legislature and sheriffs, imagine what ONE constitutionalist governor could do. I get goose bumps thinking about it!

Me too, especially after reading that link above

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/search?q=arpaio

Read that link.

Imagine a State with its own financial system--its own currency, banks, regulatory agencies, etc.

Government should not have a monopoly on money or banking. At any level.

Imagine a State with its own militia--under the authority of the governor only--completely independent from any responsibility to the President or federal government.

And me powerless to file in federal court to protect my Constitutional rights. (Yes, I know, I oppose 14th Amendment incorporation.)

Imagine a State with an education system unfettered by the federal Department of Education.

I believe in the separation of school and state.

Imagine a State where the BLM, the FBI, the ATF, and the DEA had to actually submit to State law.

Or worse, could be deployed by Sheriff Arpaio! See the photos of local military hardware in that link.

Imagine a State with its own health care system.

Eu, yuck!!
Libertarians believe in the separation of medicine and state.

Imagine a State with no FEMA--UNLESS INVITED IN.

I don't know, for some reason I feel safer with the power 2,000 miles away rather than right next-door.

Imagine a State that would not allow Washington's spooks to unlawfully spy on law-abiding citizens.

Imagine a county or state that does the spying.
Imagine a "Neighborhood Watch" against YOU!
Welcome to Communist China's village "elders."

Imagine a State that actually had a say in how much land the federal government could claim for its own.

And claimed the land instead of the feds.
Susette Kelo's home was seized by state/local authorities.

Imagine a State where citizens never had to worry about a national ID act.

And only had to worry about a STATE ID act.
And laws which changed every time you crossed a state border.

Imagine a State that would protect the right of its citizens to freely express their faith in the public square.

The State does not protect our rights!!!
The State is the greatest THREAT to our rights.

And I guess the thing that bugs me most, speaking as a perennial candidate for U.S. Congress, is Baldwin's idea of getting voters to vote for state-local politicians like Arpaio, when they still for for Republicrats and Demoblicans, and not for anarchists like ME! What progress is made with lots of Little Caesars on the local level, and voters who still vote for Roy Blunt's successor on the federal level? How can we expect voters to take action locally if they won't also take action on the federal level? Baldwin seems to be in some kind of unrealistic dream land.

Belief that local is more sanctified than federal is like believing Republicans are less dangerous than Democrats.

All of this--and more--is attainable with a constitutionalist State government committed to protecting the liberties of its citizens.

By "Constitutionalist," Baldwin means "anti-drugs," "anti-immigrant," and Pro-AUTHORITAH!

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/search?q=authoritah

I repeat: freedom in America has only one hope: the resurrection of State independence and sovereignty.

State-level or local tyranny is no better than federal tyranny.
Freedom has only one hope: the death of the myth of the moral legitimacy of "the State." The death of the myth that people wearing uniforms or carrying badges have the right to use violence -- to confiscate wealth, impede movement, kidnap, or kill.

Only libertarians are offering that vision. (At least they should be.)

In the US Constitution, our Founding Fathers sagaciously reserved to State governments their independence and sovereignty, knowing that they had the awesome responsibility of being the last (and greatest) vanguard of liberty for the American people.

This is mythology. The Federal Founders did not omnipotently grant sovereignty to the states; the states would not relinquish it to the new federal government -- and it was often guarded for nefarious reasons. Some states had practices which were as tyrannical as George III. The Federal Framers couldn't do anything about this. Many Framers of the Constitution were disappointed they could not even do anything about slavery itself. Open, notorious human traffic in several states!

The states were never given "the awesome responsibility" of being the greatest "vanguard of liberty."
No level of government is the "vanguard of liberty!"
Government is the enemy of liberty.
At every level.

They never intended or imagined that the states would ever become a doormat for the central government (which is what most of them have become).

Will Americans now become the doormat of sadistic Sheriffs and corrupt, power-hungry state-level politicians?

The whole idea of "the government" -- whether at the federal, state, or local level -- is the enemy.

"Constitutionalists" are simply substituting one form of tyranny for another.

Update 1/15/10: Local government may be just as intrusive as the federal leviathan

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Chuck Baldwin's Easter Column

"He Is Risen"
by Chuck Baldwin
April 7, 2009

As we approach Resurrection Sunday, it behooves us to remind ourselves (Christians should need no reminder) of the significance of this season. Along with the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ form the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus separates Christianity from all the world's religions.

Furthermore, the overwhelming number of America's founders understood the connection between the Christian faith and the rise of these United States. John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Adams also said, "From the day of the Declaration . . . They [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct."

Then, on July 4, 1837, Adams said these words, "Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?"

Daniel Webster also acknowledged the relationship between our founders' Christian faith and America's creation. He said, "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

Noah Webster, the man who is called the Father of American Education, said, "Education is useless without the Bible." He also said, "The Bible was America's basic textbook in all fields."

Noah Webster went on to say, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind, than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

One more quotation from Noah Webster is necessary at this point. He said, "The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."

These sentiments were the sentiments of America from the inception of our great country. Remember, the voyagers of the Mayflower made a covenant between themselves and Almighty God. It is called the Mayflower Compact, and in it they said the reason they had made the voyage and determined to plant a colony in the new world was "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith."

It was only in the last half of the 20th Century that America began trying to distance itself from its Christian heritage. Yet today, educators, entertainers, chief executives, and politicians are in the process of supplanting our Christian heritage with the pseudo-religions of secularism, multiculturalism, and universalism.

What many people do not understand is that when America abandons its dependence upon the God of the Bible, it will--at the same time--surrender the very foundation of our liberty and independence. As Thomas Jefferson said, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

Patrick Henry agreed with Jefferson. He said, "It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."

As we celebrate the vicarious death and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ, let us remember the importance of preserving liberty within these United States of America. And this commitment involves much more than attending church once a week or repeating an occasional catechism. It means we must seek to incorporate the principles of liberty and independence into the very fabric of our lives and work. It means we will offer eternal vigilance to the fundamental principles upon which America was built. Liberty has no guarantees or assurances. Each generation must work to preserve, protect, and defend the principles of constitutional government, or else liberty will be lost.

The angel spoke of Christ, declaring, "He is risen." And so He is. And because Christ lives, liberty and freedom may also live. Why? Because "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

HAPPY EASTER!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help Chuck Baldwin 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

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090407.html

Friday, March 14, 2008

Spitzer Conspiracy?

Chuck Baldwin, a "Moral Majority"-type preacher and talk-show host, has submitted his Thoughts On The Spitzer Sex Scandal.

Baldwin has a "conspiracy theory" involving an unknown reason why Spitzer was "outed" as an adulterer but hundreds of other New York and Beltway Insiders -- equally adulterous -- have not:

They say that Governor Spitzer was "Client 9" for this particular hooker. So, who are "clients 1-8"? And who are "clients 10-100"? Why do we not know their names? Anyone able to afford this prostitute's price of $1,000 per hour has to be someone of means. Who were they?

Were the other "clients" CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? If so, which ones? Were they congressmen or senators? If so, who? Were they White House executives? Were they Pentagon brass? Were they media celebrities? If so, what are their names? Were they foreign diplomats? If so, who are they, and from which countries did they come? Do you get my point?

How is it that in this elaborate FBI "sting," only Governor Eliot Spitzer was "caught?"

Interesting question, but there is as yet no evidence of anything other than a zealous bureaucrat performing his/her "duty," and proudly carving a notch for Spitzer on his/her bureaucratic weapon as another "hit." Baldwin goes on to recount a similar incident in his own life, with no evidence of any "conspiratorial" activity, just amoral bureaucrats "following orders," protecting "the rule of law":

The other element of this story that is being vastly underreported is the fact that federal police agencies are secretly looking at the financial transactions of the American people all the time. According to the USA Today, "Banks and credit unions as well as currency dealers and stores that cash checks reported a record 17.6 million transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in 2006, according to a report from the network, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department."

The Today story goes on to say, "The Treasury Department's database now contains records of more than 100 million financial transactions going back to at least 1996, said network spokesman Steve Hudak."

Today also reported, "Financial institutions have long been required to report cash transactions over $10,000. Those reports--simple notices of a deposit or withdrawal--account for more than 90% of the records the enforcement network gets each year.

"Far more controversial are secret 'suspicious activity reports' filed by financial institutions and reviewed by teams of agents spread around the country. . . .

"The number of suspicious activity reports soared from 413,000 in 2003 to 1 million in 2006, according to the enforcement network."

The American people are largely unaware that they are now living in a universal surveillance society. Virtually every major financial transaction--as well as much of their travel--is reported and monitored by the federal government. This total surveillance system, that began in earnest under Bill Clinton's administration, has mushroomed into a ubiquitous and finely tuned science under George W. Bush. Dare I say that Dubya's neurotic fixation with spying on ordinary citizens rivals Comrade Stalin's paranoiac obsession with a total surveillance society?

I can tell readers first-hand what living in this Brave New World is like. Back in the late '90's, I bought a used 1995 GMC half-ton, four wheel drive pick-up truck (which I still own). Over the course of a few years, I had saved around $5,000 in cash. I then sold my well-worn Ford Ranger pick-up truck for $5,000 cash. I was hoping I could pay cash for a bigger and better truck. Over the years growing up, I had watched my dad pay cash for most all of his purchases, including his vehicles. I thought it was one of the ultimate marks of freedom and enterprise in these United States to be able to work, save, and buy something of value with cash. I quickly discovered that the Federales in power these days do not share that same vision of freedom.

When I finally found the truck I mentioned, it cost a few thousand more than what I had saved, so I had to write a check for the difference. So, with $10,000 in cash and a check on borrowed funds, I drove off the car lot with my new (used) truck. It happens every day, right? Nothing unusual, right?

Wrong!

To my shock and chagrin, a few days following the purchase of my truck, a criminal investigator from the IRS came to my front door and demanded to know where I got the cash to pay for my truck. I am not making this up, folks. After a lengthy interrogation, the IRS man left, but not before issuing me a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury. Remember, this was in the late '90's, before Jorge Bush and Alberto Gonzales got their dictatorial hands on the helm of the myriad federal police agencies.

Mark it down, folks: you and I are constantly being watched, listened to, monitored, taped, and stalked by our own government. So, do any of us really believe that we still live in a free country? All this talk about a war on terrorism is a bunch of hooey. What is really happening is a war on freedom. The so-called "War on Terror" is only a smokescreen to hide the real agenda, which is to develop a federal police state where individual liberty is completely vanquished. And the really sad part of all of this is the manner in which the American people -- especially our pastors and churches -- seem to be willing to embrace and accept this burgeoning police state.

Why were the lives of Spitzer and Baldwin invaded by the feds? A high-level "conspiracy?" Or just the blind forces of tyrannical bureaucracy?

I don't deny conspiracies; I just don't assume them without evidence.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

The End of the Religious Right

In his latest column, Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin argues that "For all intents and purposes, [the Religious Right] -- as a national movement -- is completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed [the Religious Right] in America."

I substituted "Religious Right" for "conservatives," because it is Christian conservatives who have been exposed as cheerleaders for the Republican Party, rather than defenders of Christian principles.

But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives -- especially Christian conservatives -- surrendered their principles for the sake of political partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!

In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S. Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.

The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.

Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey Graham, of course.

Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham!

This roughly parallels Newt Gingrich and Republican leaders supporting Democrats rather than Ron Paul. Sean Hannity could have used his media power to help secure the Republican nomination for Ron Paul. Then there would have been a genuine choice in November, as well as a discussion of principles. Instead, Hannity supported arch-conservative Christian fundamentalist Rudy Giuliani and ridiculed Ron Paul. Why Dobson could reject Giuliani and vote for McCain is purely partisan pragamtism, not Christian principle.

No matter. A majority of evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted for Graham.

Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth, and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.

Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W. Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Baldwin is right about the Religious Right. How the Christian Chuck Baldwin finds instructions for immigrant-bashing in the Bible is beyond me.

"Christian Right" is a contradiction in terms. (Deuteronomy 5:32; 17:11; 17:20; 28:14; Joshua 1:7; 23:6; Psalm 125:5; Proverbs 4:27.)

Friday, November 02, 2007

Conservative Christians Reject Huckabee

Former Arkansas Governor and Rev. Mike Huckabee is said to do a knock-out impersonation of Bill Clinton. Both are great communicators, able to connect with "the folks at home."

When he first entered the race for President, many assumed that Huckabee's background as a Baptist preacher made him a shoe-in for the Christian conservative vote.

But the Religious Right is turning against Huckabee, as they learn more about his record in Arkansas. It appears that Huckabee is a liberal wolf in conservative sheep's clothing.

Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus, says Hucabee Is A Liberal In Many Ways.

Christian talk-show host Chuck Baldwin warns: Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee. But Baldwin notes that there are a few notable Christians who are rallying to Huckabee's cause (whatever it is).

The Club For Growth has issued an alarming white paper on Mike Huckabee's Record on Economic Issues, and reminds us that Mike Huckabee is a Tax Hiker .

Backwater Report » Dissin’ Huck

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Kreitzer on Government Force

Mark R. Kreitzer writes:

> Sad . . . you seem to make a fundamental philosophical error at
> the beginning in the major premise: All force is evil.

I think the "non-aggression" axiom is a start, but pacifism is a prima facie reading of Christ's ethical teachings.

> This cannot be justified by Scripture else Joshua,

"Holy War" against the inhabitants of the Promised Land cannot override the pacifist teachings of Christ and justify any government force today.

> David,

David was a "man of blood," hence disqualified from building the temple.

> Abraham rescuing Lot,

Admittedly a problematic instance. Abraham was not sinless. Kidnapping was a "capital crime" under the Old Covenant, but I don't think "capital punishment" is warranted in the New. Nevertheless, rescuing someone is certainly valid, though wanton killing of the captors is unjustified.

> Jesus sending armies against Jerusalem,

Jesus was God. He commands us to leave vengeance to God. He commanded His disciples not to defend Him or take vengeance against the Jews (Matthew 26:52; John 18:35)

> etc would be evil.

Yes, they would be. And they are. At least they are after the work of Christ on the cross.

> ONLY unjustified aggressive force is evil. (Non-aggression principle
> not equal to Non-violence principle).

We don't have to argue over definitions of words. No aggressive force is justified.

If I snatch a wallet out of Smith's hand, that might appear to be violence, but if I just witnessed Smith stealing your wallet, and I am retrieving it for you, it's not violence. If it were Smith's wallet, it would in fact be unjustified violence or aggression.

In our day, justified violence is extraordinary. Unjustified violence is ubiquitous. Governments murdered half a billion people in the 20th century. I'm always curious what motivates someone to rise to defend violence and attack pacifism.

> Second, you make an unwarranted false premise is stating that
> all taxation is the moral equivalent to theft. Then the tenth tax to
> God's Palace and his palace servants with which to help the poor
> and the needy as well is evil.

Yes, any attempt to extort money from someone on that basis is (present tense) evil. God had every right under the Old Covenant to require a tithe, but I don't see the practical mechanics for such a demand in our day. There is no more "God's Palace" after AD 70, and no more "palace servants." There are, arguably, no poor, at least in the U.S. The "church" collected the tithe in the OT; why the State today?

> No, taxation is to support what God
> defines as the ONE necessary function of civil government --
> exercise of completely impartial biblical justice.

The word "ONE" is emphasized, yet there are obviously other purposes, such as "palace servants" and "the poor." No conservative supports a welfare state. Where are the specific Biblical texts which say "no more taxation for the poor" and yet also mandate tax-supported arbitration of disputes (which the Free Market is better qualified to undertake)?

> Who, however, defines impartial justice? Who defines the four
> governments? Who defines justified force? Who defines government
> spheres? Who defines functions and boundaries of each? The God
> of Scripture. Seen in this light and combining Rom 12 and 13
> as this site does, Christian minarchy (i.e., a strictly limited Christian
> Constitutional Republic) is the answer not non-Christian anarchy.

False choice. What about Christian anarchy?

> A strictly limited civil government is only one of four governments
> (ecclessial--rule by elders under Christ), familial (rule by father and
> mother under God-in-Christ), civil (a Christic Republic with the
> framework of the Decalogue under God in Christ), and the
> FOUNDATIONAL self-government by the Holy Spirit in Christ.

I agree about "self-government."
I agree with "familial" government.
I think "ecclesial rule" expired with the priesthood and the temple in AD 70.
I think "civil" functions can be discharged by a Free Market -- capitalism, not socialism.

> Keep thinking! (Read Chuck Baldwin on Rom 13 to see why Ron Paul
> says that he is a minarchist. Then read and refute Gary DeMar
> God and Government. Then re-read Rushdoony. He is not an anarchist
> but a minarchist).

I don't need to re-read Rushdoony to figure out that he is not an anarchist.
I think I've refuted Gary DeMar's position, though I haven't interacted specifically with God and Government. See my response to John M. Frame.
I haven't read Baldwin's book, but I'll bet he hasn't read my site either.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Independence Day Reading

Here's a nice sentimental, patriotic piece:

Celebrate Independence Day the John Adams Way - Associated Content

OK, when the parades are over, the BBQ has cooled off, and the smoke from the fireworks has cleared away, let's get a litle more serious.

Flag Waving Is Not My Kind of Patriotism by Robert Higgs

Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day! - Mises Economics Blog

The Myths of Independence Day | John Chuckman

Would YOU sign the Declaration of Independence? « LewRockwell.com Blog

Independence and Liberty by Anthony Gregory

Goodbye 1776, 1789, Tom « LewRockwell.com Blog

Unqualified Reservations: A gentle introduction to Unqualified Reservations (part 2)

Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom Manuel Lora

When Did the Trouble Start? Stephan Kinsella

Richman on the 4th of July and American Independence

Declare YOUR Independence DownsizeDC.org

Big Government and the 4th of July Mises Economics Blog

Preface of the pocket edition of the Constitution of the United States of America Roger Pilon

Love Our Country; Hate "Our" Government Will Grigg's Liberty Minutes

Independence now and forever Chuck Baldwin promises to be an "outlaw." Is this a Christian strategy?

Those Who “Serve” Us Celebrate Cato @ Liberty

A Declaration of Independence from Big Government

Celebrating Independence Day's Principles Roger Pilon Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The Economics of Sin BLOG and MABLOG

The Declaration of Independence in American Mises Institute The Free Market

Online Library of Liberty - 1776: Hutchinson, Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence

America the Beautiful

From the Future of Freedom Foundation (subscribe)

The Real Meaningof the Fourth of July by Jacob G. Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation
What Do We Celebrate on the Fourth of July (2007) by Tibor R. Machan, Future of Freedom Foundation
Recapturing the Spirit of Independence (2007) by Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives
The Essence ofAmericanism (1961) by Leonard E. Read, Foundation for Economic Education
Adam Smith: 1776-1976 (1979) by Benjamin A. Rogge, Liberty Fund

INDEPENDENCE DAY
The Founders' Rights Stuff by Rosa Brooks, Common Dreams
July 4th in Bizarro World by Manuel Lora, LewRockwell.com
History Shouldn't Forget Our "Founding Printers" by Antonio Perez, USA Today
Three Cheers for July 2 by Andrew Trees, Washington Post
Reclaiming America's Promise Editorial, USA Today

http://www.july4th1776.org/

Friday, August 01, 2008

Bush in China

Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin writes:

It is hard for this writer to laud President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but in this case, even the socialist Roosevelt showed more integrity than our so-called "conservative" President, George W. Bush. When the 1936 Olympics were held in Berlin, Germany, President Roosevelt refused to attend those ceremonies for fear that his presence would give honor and prestige to the notorious Adolf Hitler. And so it would have. And, by the same token, when President Bush attends the opening ceremonies in China, he is giving honor and prestige to the bloody butchers of Beijing who have persecuted,tortured, and murdered multiplied thousands of the Chinese people since the communist regime took power in 1949.

Bush said that it "would be an affront to the Chinese people" if he stayed away. Wrong. It would be an affront to the Red Chinese tyrants. And they deserve to be affronted! Instead, by attending the Olympic ceremonies, Bush is choosing to affront the hundreds of thousands of Chinese victims who have suffered brutality and barbarism at the hands of the very people Bush will be wining and dining with.

Other world leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, are choosing to not attend the opening ceremonies in the communist country.

Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute writes:

John McCain harbors a barely disguised hostility toward China, arguing that her growing economy and military modernization pose a great threat to the United States. On several occasions, he has cited China's rise as a justification for even greater U.S. military spending. Most independent experts estimate Beijing's military budget to be between $50 and $75 billion, and the Pentagon contends it is between $84 and $125 billion. At any rate, McCain considers the amount excessive for China's legitimate defense needs. Yet he does not view the U.S. military budget (including supplementals for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) of nearly $800 billion to be excessive.

He also advocates provocative symbolic snubs of the Chinese government. For example, he criticized President Bush's decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, because of human-rights abuses.

Cato Institute foreign-policy analyst Malou Innocent concedes that Beijing's authoritarianism is troubling, but she notes that "Senator McCain appears to preclude the possibility of building a constructive relationship with China unless it becomes fully democratic." That attitude puts at risk America's extensive economic relationship with China as well as ignores the numerous issues on which we need China's help — most notably in trying to defuse the North Korean and Iranian crises. This is yet another area in which a McCain presidency would likely be more confrontational and destabilizing than the Bush presidency.

Does the refusal of Merkel and Brown to honor the Chinese Communists put their countries' economic relationships with China at risk? How many weapons has the Chinese government sold to Iran?

When Americans cooperate with Chinese entrepreneurs to build a McDonald's in China, liberty is arguably enhanced. When Washington D.C. cooperates with the Chinese Communist government, liberty is arguably at risk.

When Americans compete against citizens of a dictatorship in the Olympics, liberty is arguably enhanced. When Washington D.C. cooperates with the Chinese Communist government, liberty is arguably at risk.

Are the Chinese Communists really going to prevent American entrepreneurs from building any more McDonald's in China if Bush doesn't honor the Chinese government at the Olympics? Would cutting the Chinese people off from American productivity make revolution in China more likely?

The original American view is for Americans to have liberty -- as individuals or as corporations and voluntary associations -- and for the federal government to have no entangling alliances with other regimes.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Immigration -- mofb #14

Miscellaneous

1. Please explain your views on U.S. immigration policy, including any measures you would support to reform current laws.

I am pro-immigration, and my views are inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out the benefits of voluntary associations which met immigrants at the docks and Americanized them. These efforts are what's needed, not a militarization of the border:

http://KevinCraig.us/missions.htm

The Constitution gives the federal government no power at all over who can visit the U.S., for how long, and who can hire them. The only power given to the federal government in the Constitution is the power to determine standards of citizenship for people who want to stay.

Immigration benefits the U.S. economy. I have examined contrary claims here:

Immigration Overview
Immigration in a Division of Labor Economy
Why Immigration Enhances Our Culture
Why Immigration Increases Our Technology
Positive Effects of Population Growth through Immigration
The Case for Free Immigration
Refutation of the Arguments Against Free Immigration
Why Immigration Increases Capital
Why Immigration Raises Real Wage Rates
Legalized Immigration Does Not Destroy Our Culture
A Biblical Discussion about Immigration with Chuck Baldwin
Downward Shift In Libertarian Party Platform
Why Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional
Controlling Immigration without government coercion

See also comments on the Farm Bureau Policy Statement:

Foreign Policy

This is one in a series of blog posts answering questions posed to candidates in the 7th District by the Missouri Farm Bureau. Here is the list of mofb blog posts in this series.

Friday, May 23, 2008

They Died In Vain: Memorial Day 2008

No doubt many brave and courageous Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. We've seen pictures of their caring and self-sacrificing actions. On Memorial Day we mourn those who did not come home.

If we back away from the emotion and look at their deaths more objectively -- from the perspective of those in Washington D.C. who ordered them off to foreign lands -- we have to conclude that they all died in vain.

Why should any American die to erect an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq? But that's what the Bush Administration has accomplished.

It seems that very little has changed since last year. No big changes have had to be made to my Memorial Day essay from last year. I'm still convinced that they all died in vain.

If you believe that the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq, and tens of thousands of Americans in wars throughout the 20th century, have made our world a better world, and brought us closer to the ideal of "Liberty Under God," feel free to post a comment.

Or speak out at the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall, this Saturday at 10:30am Central Time.

-----=====******O******=====-----

Free Association: Happy Revisionist History Day

Our military need real support, not empty rhetoric - Chuck Baldwin

Remember - Roger Young - Price of Liberty

Conscience On The Battlefield by Leonard E. Read

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Robert E. Lee

Yesterday was the 200th anniversary of the birth of General Robert E. Lee. Tomorrow is the birthday of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.

Today's politicians are tiny, buzzing gnats compared to these giants of Christian character.

Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee immediately freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves which were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, neither Lee nor Jackson ever spoke disparagingly of the black race.

Praise for Lee and Jackson, by Chuck Baldwin

I'd like to think that if they could travel through time to our day, Lee and Jackson would see the error of taking up arms against King Lincoln and his mercantilist invaders, and leaving 700,000 dead.

At 200, Lee's halo still largely intact ajc.com

Robert E. Lee, Version 200 - washingtonpost.com

The Sun News 01/18/2007 Remember Robert E. Lee, a man of character

Fredericksburg.com - Remembering Lee--a true American hero, and man of character

Virginia honors 200th anniversary of Robert E. Lee's birth, though some frown on state funding

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

300 posts

I've now posted over 300 times to this blog. This may not be of any benefit to anyone else, but I want to download a copy of all my posts, so here they are: