Archive for the ‘2008 Elections’ Category

The Obama/Wright Controversy: Symptom of a Rigged Election

Author of Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola–Nature, Accident or Intentional?

This Obama/Wright controversy is a deadly deception and political distraction in a rigged election.
Rev. Wright’s unsettling truth-telling is decades old. Why would it surface suddenly when Barack Obama was about to trounce Hillary? The timing is obviously telling:  The illusion of wrongdoing by Rev. Wright is being spun to demonize Obama, a shill candidate, advancing a predetermined plan to put a witch in the White House.
Who controls such shenanigans, American politics, and media propaganda? The economic power restricting American political representation to two parties, flip sides of the same corrupt co[i]n, ostracizes and demonizes humanitarian truth-tellers for multi-national corporate control. Thus, the mass mind is effectively misdirected to tolerate, even generate, the genocides against which Rev. Wright preaches.
How dare the pundits indict this holy man when, by their ignorance and prostitution, they shun for profitable political expediency the millions of people morbidly wounded and mortally sacrificed to the military-medical-petrochemical-pharmaceutical cartel?
If vaccines triggered AIDS, as Rev. Wright and scientists worldwide now preach, what makes you think such profitable contaminations and exterminations died with Tuskeegee? Can the world’s wealthiest vaccine-maker, Merck, be trusted to give us anything better than VIOXX?
Politics played as usual assures you will never know who or what ails you, poisons your children, kills your parents, and pollutes our planet. If AIDS’s immunological degeneration (like environmental pollution) is not a “socio-political imposition” as the late Jonathan Mann, AIDS czar for the World Health Organization, said exposing the iniquity and impotence of his political appointment, what do you call popping pills to cure every ill and accepting side effects far worse than the original diseases? Only fools and madmen call this genocide civilized.
Now, by his spoiled harvest, we know Barack Obama. As my letter to Rev. Wright stated, “Rather than modeling faithful and honest leadership to remedy this nation’s and world’s gravest inequity, that of man’s inhumanity towards man through the administration of . . . genocide, [Obama] chose political expediency over Divine loyalty. In so doing, he rejected the opportunity . . . to save our human family from the ongoing and increasing tragedy of population decimation.”
Obama no longer deserves my vote. Nor does the White House witch prescribing cheap drugs, vaginal vaccines, medical IDs, and biochips for a “freer America.” John McCain already looks and acts comatose. That only leaves Ron Paul.

About the author: Leonard G.Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH, DNM, DMM has authored dozens of scientific articles and sixteen books about health and natural healing. He has been interviewed repeatedly as an expert guest on every major television and radio network throughout North America. His works on vaccination contaminations and government suppressed public health risks has made him world famous for helping to save millions of lives. This article was prompted by Rev. Wright’s spontaneous urging on network television for serious HIV/AIDS and genocide investigators to “read Dr. Horowitz’s book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola–Nature, Accident or Intentional?

You can also view the entire message list archive by clicking here.

Our Specialty Items

Rarely found, little known cures.
Miracle 6 for energy medicine
Tetrasil broad spectrum non-toxic antibiotic
GI FloraPro intestinal probiotic
Immune Advantage

OXY SILVER

Advertisements

 

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/081

BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG

by Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

April 15, 2008

 

Statue of Ronald Reagan in Full Cowboy Gear at the Entrance to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It is entitled “After the Ride.”

Dateline: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California Before you open a door and enter into the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a large bronze sculpture of a strapping cowboy greets you, with the wide-eyed optimism of the mythic west, a handkerchief dangling from the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and cowboy hat in hand. It’s called “After the Ride” and it is a tribute to Ronald Reagan. Or make that the myth of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, as the fawning exhibition area that paints a flattering, blemish free portrait of his life unintentionally reveals, went from a childhood and small college upbringing in Illinois to a Hollywood “B” film career, to spokesperson for the GE corporation, to Death Valley Days, to the political life that led him to the White House. The key transition, not noted as such by the library narrative, is when Reagan became the hired front man for GE, hosting a program for them but also going around the country selling the concept that the corporation is a benevolent and positive force in our lives, without any downsides. Reagan went from a “B” movie career to an “A” career as a political salesman for corporate wealth and control of the government. In the turbulent social climate of the ’60s, his wealthy backers (who regarded him as a prize race horse for a right-wing coup for the super rich and corporate welfare) watched as Reagan won the governorship and masterfully was guided in the use of wedge issues such as “Guns and God” to lure the emerging displaced middle class into voting Republican. Aside from the “October Surprise,” when Reagan negotiators allegedly convinced the Iranian mullahs to hold onto our hostages until Reagan’s inauguration day (they were literally released after he was sworn in), the GOP had perfected the selling of a myth about America — and they had the hale and hearty actor to sell the product. The myth of “morning in America” obscured the emerging theft of jobs from the middle class by creating emotional hot buttons for rural and working class voters to gravitate toward: Their values were under attack by liberal extremists, they were repeatedly told. Only the Republicans could save the nation from further moral degradation, the myth went — and only the GOP could guarantee victory in foreign conflicts (even if the conflicts were often unnecessary and the GOP failed to achieve “victory,” however it might be defined). Because our perceptions today are so dependent upon television as a source, how one acts as president or senator has superseded, in large part, what one does. Ronald Reagan made many working class and rural voters proud to be Americans again, but meanwhile, behind the scenes, corporate lobbyists and Reagan’s aides (who were really running the show) went about dismantling factories in places like central Pennsylvania and moving them overseas, sometimes — literally — in the dark of night. It was the Republican version of “Let them eat cake.” Only, in this case, it was: “Let them eat God, Guns, and Patriotism.” This process that began with Reagan’s election continued through Bush I — and to a degree in the Bill Clinton Administration, as he aggressively pursued NAFTA and followed the neo-liberal economic agenda of opening up the gates of exporting jobs in return for larger corporate profits — and it rocketed ahead in the administration of Bush II into a juggernaut of betrayal of the middle class. Hunting and faith are important to many people in rural America and small towns — as faith is throughout America — but there has and will be no threat to those core “values.” There is no gun control measure with any remote possibility of passing in any state that would affect hunters — and Democrats and civil libertarians are ardent supporters of the right to follow one’s religious beliefs without government interference. So, Barack Obama’s remarks in San Francisco, as borne out by a true understanding of the Ronald Reagan myth, are ultimately true. His mistake was that he said what he said in a way that allowed the twin corporate D.C. insiders — McCain and Clinton — to once again demagogue the issue into one of emotion, rather than fact. And that is what the attack on Obama is about: demagoguery. I can’t save workers from voting against their own economic interests when they vote to defend values that no one is going to take away from them. And I understand that Clinton and McCain are playing on the pride of such displaced members of the middle class. No one wants to be told that they have been duped for nearly 30 years by the wealthy backers of the Republicrats. Rural and small town Pennsylvanians want to feel proud about America and themselves — and the uproar from the McCain and Clinton camps once again presses the hot button of dignity, while privately believing in (whatever Clinton is saying on the campaign trail today) policies that will continue to erode the earnings and standard of living of the very people that they claim to be championing. The media owned by corporate elites has a role in this, too. Last month, the conventional wisdom of the media, for the most part, was that the deteriorating rust belt of Western Pennsylvania had left many former decently paid workers angry and bitter. But, on a dime, the new conventional wisdom, after Obama’s remarks, was that it was insulting to say that these same people are angry and bitter. Nothing says more about the non-factual based reporting of the mainstream press than that sudden conversion, because the mainstream media represents the global corporate interests of its multinational parent companies who reap the profits of moving jobs overseas. What Obama said was shorthand for this grim reality: no one is really threatening the traditions of hunting, or anyone’s faith, or heterosexual marriage. But there are plenty of politicians among the Republicrats — usually the Republicans, but Hillary Clinton has joined with them on this one — who exploit the fear that conspiratorial “leftist” forces are conspiring to end hunting and religious belief in America. This is the heart of being a demagogue, because it is an appeal to emotion that has no basis in fact. It is how Republicans have won many an election, and how Senator Clinton is now trying, in a last gasp, to obtain the office she has compromised so much of her life pursuing. As someone who was born and raised in Illinois, and having lived here my adult life, I was always surprised by how little connection Reagan appeared as an adult to have with home state. During his presidency, he rarely returned here, and his persona was tied to the myth of the cowboy, the triumphant rugged conqueror of the West. Illinois was just part of his early biography. He seemed to have no strong emotional attachment to the very Midwest roots that he so championed. It just didn’t fit in with the mythic figure that came out of his films, Western ranch (which was the inspiration for Rove getting Bush to buy his Crawford spread and do a Reagan “cut the brush” imitation), and heroic GI movie roles during WW II (which he never actually fought in.) So we understand that some of the working class who buy clothes at Wal-Mart that they used to make — because the price is right — only the blouses and shirts are made in China now — we understand that they feel insulted by some politician telling them that they’ve been taken for a ride, that no one is going to stop them from hunting or going to their church, but that the people who peddle that nonsense to them are allowing corporations to steal their jobs and wallets from right in front of their noses. That’s a tough pill to swallow, that you’ve been swindled for 30 years. But McCain and Clinton are once again pulling the same Republicrat tricks of playing on emotional vulnerabilities while ignoring the truth surrounding the job heist that is occurring in places like Pennsylvania. Yes, it is bad political practice to ever say anything that makes a group of potential voters feel that they are being insulted because you’re making the claim that they’ve been had. But if you want to help those same people out to create a positive future for employment and their standard of living, you can’t keep hiding the truth under a rock. Obama’s statement could have been said more fully, and not so elliptically, and that would have explained the difference between respect for traditions and beliefs, and exploitation of those very same characteristics for political gain by those who are exploiting the working class. But, in the end, as he did with race, Obama is touching upon a third rail of truth that neither party wants to discuss much. The “K Street Lobbyists” are very pleased with the masquerade and demagoguery that achieved, and now accelerates, the slide of the middle class towards a lower class fate. The working class will have its faith, hunting, and small town “values,” but it can’t have them if they don’t have jobs. And after Obama’s remarks, they can’t say that they weren’t warned by an honest politician.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG

 

by Chuck Baldwin
April 15, 2008

Every four years, conservative “pragmatists” trot out the “We Can’t Let So-And-So Win” mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called “conservative” Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different. This year’s Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and “gay rights.” To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall. So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John “McSame” McCain. Let’s be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one. On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to “family values” voters. He is no friend to America’s blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration. On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism. But this is where the Boogeyman comes in. At this point, Republican Party lackeys will break in and say, “We can’t let Hillary Clinton win. We can’t let Barack Obama win.” Even the favored son of the Religious Right, Mike Huckabee, has endorsed John McCain, not to mention Mitt Romney and virtually every other Republican “bigwig.” (Thank God, Ron Paul has maintained his integrity by NOT endorsing McCain.) I, for one, am fed up with this baloney, because what we are actually faced with is not the “lesser of two evils” but “the evil of two lessers.” (To quote a good friend of mine.) And the reason John McCain would actually be a worse President than either Obama or Clinton is because of the manner in which conservatives go to sleep whenever a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Furthermore, the next couple of years are “crunch time” for this burgeoning North American Union and related issues. America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country’s independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and “free trade” deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery. And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance. If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs. So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain. I realize that there are many readers shouting to themselves right now and saying, “So what do we do, Chuck? We have to vote for one or the other.” To which I say, No you don’t. You can think outside the box. You don’t have to throw your vote away on either of these wretched candidates. You can cast a vote for principle and vote for a third party candidate. I can hear readers screaming at me now, saying that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I strongly disagree! Casting a vote for a person who you know is unfaithful to your principles is a wasted vote! Voting for someone who you know will keep our borders and ports open to illegals, continue George Bush’s preemptive war doctrine, and facilitate a burgeoning hemispheric government–not to mention someone who will increase and augment a burgeoning Orwellian police state–is a wasted vote! At some point, we Americans must decide whether we will tolerate the continued sellout of our freedoms and principles or not. Will we swallow the shallow squeals of the establishment elite who think we are a bunch of sheep to be herded into their New World Order? Or will we stand our ground? Will we vote our principles and our conscience? It does not matter that the pundits and experts say we can’t win. That is not our business. As John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” When will Christians, especially, quit trying to play politics and start standing for principle? They talk a lot about principle, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, most don’t act like people of principle. If God intends to give America another chance, if He intends to return these United States to constitutional government, and if He intends to preserve America’s independence, it will only come in the form of a miracle. And miracles do not happen by the machinations of pragmatic planners. Miracles are just that. America was born a miracle, and it could now be given a new birth by miracle. If so, it would demand that people of principle start acting like it. That we cast aside the pragmatic, the reasonable, the sophisticated, and the expected. That we–as did the priests of old–would be willing to step out into the raging current of the Jordan River, knowing that either God would part the water or we would drown. That we would be willing to sign our names to a document–as did our Founding Fathers–that would make us either the enemies of the state or the inventors of a new nation. It means taking risks; it means doing the impractical; it means rejecting accepted wisdom and standing for principle. I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now. And I am expecting God to grant such a miracle. Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who “has no chance of winning” in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do. So, who will join me? *If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as

 http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080415.html

Nothing could be better for the country that cancelling the 2008 election. Leave the office of the presidency empty.

I can see only one possible justification for having a president of the United States: to preside over the dismantling of the federal government. If you think this is a radical idea, think again. This is, in part, what people have long voted for, even if they never actually get it. I can hardly remember a time when a president has been elected who didn’t promise to get the government off our backs.

In one way, this agenda makes no sense, of course. You don’t hire a CEO to drive a company into bankruptcy. You don’t appoint a pastor to shrink a congregation. Why should we expect a president to dismantle the thing that gives him power and fame, and his allies huge wealth? Well, realistically, you can’t. But it’s the best hope we have within the framework of conventional politics.

The irony is that most presidents get elected on the prospect that they will curb power. It’s true of George Bush, who promised domestic cuts and a humble foreign policy. Clinton was also elected on the promise of middle-class tax cuts. We can go back and back and see it was true for the first Bush, for Reagan, for Carter, for Nixon, and so on.

For that matter, FDR himself denounced government spending during this first campaign. “I accuse the present administration [Hoover’s] of being the greatest spending administration in peace times in all our history,” and added, “On my part, I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government.” He further denounced the government for “fostering regimentation without stint or limit.”

It was even true with George Washington, who had made innumerable speeches on the evil of tyranny only to take power and use it to the benefit of the powerful. Even Jefferson succumbed with his mistaken Louisiana Purchase, though he later entertained the possibility of a salutary breakup of the United States into many different countries.

And so on it goes. And it will happen again, despite all promises.

Folks, there is something wrong with this model of governance, not just current policy but the whole structure. We might even argue that the error goes back to the Constitution, a document that created new government powers unprecedented in Colonial history, and put the government in charge of restraining itself. It set up competitive divisions within government under the presumption that they would keep each other in check. Instead, they cooperated toward mutual expansion, especially after the federal power seizure called the Civil War.

Part of the problem dates to a core error within liberal theory: the belief that it was possible to create a government that was an extension of society, thanks to the relentless input of the people via democratic institutions. What this model did instead is enlist the public as part of their own destruction. And it created confusion about who precisely is to blame when things don’t work out. Under democracy, aren’t we the government? Aren’t we doing this to ourselves?

Let’s draw on another aspect of old-time liberal theory as a means of finding a way out of this mess. There are two additional contributions that liberalism made. It taught that society is capable of self-management, and that government is not the reason for order in society. Summing up the old liberal position, Patrick Henry said:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.

 If we would be true to this line of thought, we should propose the unthinkable: cancel the election. This has never before been so urgent. Neither party will cut government in a way that is desperately needed. Instead, they offer a left- or right-tinged Americanized socialism or fascism. One promises domestic expansion and foreign reduction; the other promises foreign expansion and domestic reduction. The inevitable compromise: expand both domestically and internationally.

In addition, whatever the new president does will make our growing economic problems worse. The economic interventions they propose will add to our troubles, whether that means expanding inflation, taxes, controls, or debt. Another war is unthinkable, but probably inevitable. You can already detect it in the aggressive trajectory towards Iran. More business regulation can only dampen the fires of free enterprise, which are our saving grace today.

The best solution would be a government that would destroy itself. The second best solution would be a government that does nothing at all – then, at least, matters will not get worse. This is what canceling the election would do. It would introduce enough confusion and chaos to keep government from acting either domestically or internationally, which would be a wonderful thing.

There is also the matter of public will. We pretend as if the person who is elected enjoys the support of a majority. Nonsense. Most people who can vote do not vote, and who can blame them? Those who do vote are most likely voting against the other guy and not for a positive program. The person elected will enjoy a mandate of perhaps 5–10% of the population that actively supports the agenda. I say: make the new president their president but not our president.

It’s true that what I’m proposing constitutes a purely negative agenda. So let’s look to a positive goal. This country is too large to be governed from the center. It is long past time that it be broken into ever smaller pieces, even to the size of the world’s smallest nations. In that way, the US government will cease to be a menace to its citizens and to the world. Prosperity will be assured in the same way it always has: through peace and free trade with all.

But what about the Constitution? Let Jefferson speak: “We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable…. But can they be made unchangeable?… I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to person, not to things.”

It is highly significant that Jefferson, when he wrote his own epitaph, wanted to be remembered for the Declaration of Independence, for the Virginia statute on religious freedom, and for founding the University of Virginia. That he was a two-term president is not listed.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell Archives

Ah! Dull witted mortal,

if Fortune begin to stay still, she is no longer Fortune.

 ~ Boethius

 Those who fancy themselves part of what Albert J. Nock called “the remnant,” i.e., the die-hard advocates of natural rights and civilized values, may sense, as this winter campaign stretches on and the spring of victory seems to recede, a feeling that it has all been in vain. Indeed, it would have been in vain if either we or our candidate had embarked on a campaign for political plunder, rather than what I prefer to call a “prophetic pantomime.” The remnant may remain firm in its anti-political creed…but it has been a long season of acting out the part of men and women hungry for the spoils of victory. Even so, we should remind ourselves that it was never a game of win or loose, it was a game of speaking truth to power…which is more of a prophetic than a political function. Now it’s perfectly understandable that many people (and by no means just the fans of Senator Obama) would warm to the advent of a “great” president. But Ron Paul supporters wouldn’t want the good doctor to be quite as “great” as a Teddy Roosevelt, or even a Franklin Pierce, a William Henry Harrison, a Millard Fillmore or a Rutherford Hayes. I’m not sure how Thomas Carlyle would have answered Tina Turner’s assertion that “we don’t need another hero” but the Scottish curmudgeon at least had the perspicacity to point out that heroism comes in a variety of forms, some of them less dangerous to life and limb than others. For example if one consults the Bible one will find a distinction between the office of a seer and of a king, the latter being what today we would call a “politician,” with some not too subtle hints that the former is more reputable than the latter. Note, in this regard, that Samuel usually comes off in a better light than David.And closer to home, hasn’t America had far greater non-presidents than presidents? Perhaps the archetypal non-president was William Jennings Bryan, the crusher of youthful Vachel Lindsay’s political hopes, who whines,
Defeat of the alfalfa and the Mariposa lily.
Defeat of the Pacific and the long Mississippi.
Defeat of the young by the old and the silly.
Defeat of tornadoes by the poison vats supreme.
Defeat of my boyhood, defeat of my dream.
 Be that as it may, reading between the lines of his work, it’s curious that Lindsay’s self-pitying effusions don’t carry conviction, for the poem gives ample testimony to the enduring power of his hero, Bryan the prophet who overshadows and outlives Bryan the president-manqué.

And Bryan took the platform.
And he was introduced
And he lifted his hand
And cast a new spell.
Progressive silence fell
In Springfield,
In Illinois,
Around the world.

For better or worse (and I’m no Bryan fan) much of the “progressivism” of Bryan’s 1896 presidential campaign became prophetic of what America would become in the 20th century. His “cross of gold” speech was a classic example of speaking truth to power. Today of course it is an endless torrent of paper and Matrix-like information bytes which crucify mankind, but we can’t be too hard on old Bryan for not foreseeing that, for as I will explain, foresight is not the primary characteristic of prophecy. And moreover, we have our own political prophet, Dr. Ron Paul. Rather, we must come to grips with the everlasting difficulty of understanding the prophetic (as opposed to the political) modality of power, which is simply a problem of patience, of being able to endure the interval between the “speaking truth” and the “to power.”

On the other hand, why would anyone want to pin the label “prophet” on a nice guy like Ron Paul, a sobriquet which, possibly second to “politician” is the most despised job category (or is that Job category) on earth? It all depends what one means by a prophet, so let me offer, once and for all, a handy all-purpose definition: A prophet is a person who sees some higher reality which is invisible to others. This higher reality doesn’t have to be something complicated or metaphysical, it could be a moral principle which is so basic that most people take it for granted, and hence render it invisible. Ron Paul, when debating with his so-called peers in the Republican primary debates seemed to dwell in a world of entirely different premises. It wasn’t just that Dr. Paul and his antagonists were disagreeing on the issues, which of course they were, but more fundamentally, Dr. Paul was using an entirely different “tool kit” from the mental “tool kit” (or absence thereof) used by his opponents. His antagonists were accustomed to talking about facts on the ground, facts in a constant state of flux, whereas Ron Paul consistently recurred to first principles. Is there any wonder that there was no meeting of minds? Even if the debates had been broadcast in a fair manner, which they weren’t, there could have been no communication between minds habituated to operating along different dimensions.

Which brings us to another uncomfortable fact: prophets are generally considered to be mad by the vast majority of their contemporaries. Not that even madness itself should be considered without redeeming value. After all, one of the charms of American culture is that the national landscape is periodically enlivened by the outburst of some joyous madness, either sacred or profane. From the ecstasies of native shamans to awakenings in Pentecostal tents, to hot jazz and hotter rock n’ roll…an occasional delirium has been known to sooth the collective soul. No, it is not madness per se which deserves censure, for there is a salutary ecstasy, as well as a calculating, sober tenor of mind which leads to perdition. And for this latter reason I am not willing to grant the title of “prophet” to divines who spin future military history from the margins of their Schofield Bibles, or to kabbalistic rabbis who’s angels have told them to exodus the Labor for the Likud. These people might be prognosticators but they certainly aren’t prophets in the true sense.

The problem with all prognosticators, whether they speak in the language of religion or some warmed-over Marxian dialectic, is that they are simply looking down the barrel of a gun called “the future.” If they are wrong they loose and we have been made fools of, and if they are right we all loose, for it means that they have succeeded in locking the rest of us into their own tunnel vision, a nightmare in which the future is merely an exaggerated form of the present. On the contrary, true prophecy should increase the indeterminacy of events yet to come, stirring up the crucible of time using novel insights into timeless principles. This is the sine qua non of a true prophet.

Yet it is proverbial that the lying prognosticator is less likely to be accused of insanity than the true prophet, for the former appeals to prejudice and probabilities, while words of the latter refer to values which are not only intangible to the senses but often difficult for the mind to grasp. This is classically true of metaphysical prophecy, as in the numinous and inexplicable “wheels” and “eyes” and “feet” of Ezekiel’s visions. It also manifests itself in the world of art, for example in the incomprehensible visions of surrealism, which provoked Salvador Dali’s famous quip that “the only difference between a madman and me is that I’m not mad!” But oddest of all is that this disjunction between ordinary and prophetic perception should even hold true in the seemingly mundane realms of public ethics and political economy. Yet it apparently does, as recent events have shown. It is clear that a Ron Paul, and the remnant that are able to follow his mind, are capable of “seeing” freedom and justice in a manner which is at radical variance from that of the other candidates and the general electorate.

Now given the assumption that the prophet in question is indeed a true prophet, we must proceed by turning conventional wisdom on its head. From this vantage point only the prophet is sane! Conversely, insanity can be seen as normative, with the exception of the remnant who can follow prophet’s logic. Hence, to the mad majority the words and the behavior of the prophet seem more than a little “off.” The primary reason for this is that the prophet is using an entirely different metal “tool kit” (which philosophers, with their penchant for Greek jargon, term an organon). While the multitude is hypnotized by the flow of palpable events, the prophet lifts his or her face up to “heaven”…a vertical dimension of intangible values and principles. This transcendentalism elicits a common response from the flatlanders, a response which all members of the remnant will instantly recognize: the characteristic rolling of the eyes, a shrug of the shoulders, and a studious avoidance of any serious communication.

But it gets worse, for there is a corollary factor which confirms the majority in its opinion of the prophet’s madness. One must keep in mind that the prophet, as the emissary of a higher truth, is not free to desist from communicating the message. Seeing that mere words fail to move the majority, increasingly dramatic modalities of expression must be resorted to. For example Jeremiah, that patron saint of all sandwich-men and placard bearers, roamed the streets of Jerusalem with a yoke around his neck, warning of a Babylonian captivity. Our own captivity to an increasingly out-of-control world order, an order based on militarism, administrative edict, and fiscal legerdemain has evolved so insidiously “within the form” of traditional institutions, that it is as invisible to us as the impending captivity of Israel was to Jeremiah’s contemporaries. Ron Paul’s response to this emergency has been, like that of Jeremiah, one of prophetic pantomime. The good doctor has put himself forward as candidate for emperor! In doing so he has lost the sympathy of a few self-righteous anarchists, caused a goodly number of his followers to mistake him for a “messiah,” and confirmed the majority in their opinion of his eccentricity. Of course all of these mistaken, though perfectly predictable, reactions have been elicited through the old prophetic trick of stirring up the pot of public opinion with the unexpected. Indeed, nobody expected Ron Paul to get as far, in as short a time, as he has managed to do. It has created more than anxiety in establishment circles…it has created indeterminacy.

One may bewail the fact that Congressman Paul is unlikely to ascend to the imperial purple. But would any action less dramatic have brought the remnant together, given it a voice, and started it off on the road, not to the future, but to a possible time when people are ready and sickened of our present future?

March 3, 2008

Mark Sunwall [send him email] studied Austrian economics at George Mason University and now teaches Rhetoric and Social Science at the University of Hyogo. He is an Adjunct Scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

By Vivien Lou Chen and Thomas Keene

Original Article

March 1 (Bloomberg) — Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz, author of a new book that claims the Iraq war will cost the U.S. more than $3 trillion, said the final tally is likely to climb much higher than that.“It’s much more like five trillion,” Stiglitz said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Radio. “We were trying to make Americans understand how expensive this war was so we didn’t want to quibble about a dime here or a dime there.”

His analysis comes as the Senate debates a Democratic plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. The 2001 Nobel winner’s initial estimate of $3 trillion drew criticism from Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who said that the number ignores the price the U.S. would pay if Iraq became a terrorist state.

“Three trillion is a lot of money no matter how you look at it,” said Stiglitz, 65, a former economics adviser to President Bill Clinton. The conflict has driven the nation’s energy costs higher by adding $5 to $10 to the price of a barrel of oil, and may enlarge the national debt by $2 trillion in the year 2017, he said.

“This war is the first war ever that’s been totally financed by borrowing, by deficits,” said Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York. “Because we haven’t raised taxes, because we’ve tried to pretend this war is for free, we’ve been skimping on our treatment of veterans.”

Bills Pile Up

Bills from the Iraq war will pile up for decades to come as the government spends hundreds of billions of dollars providing medical care and disability benefits to about 70,000 soldiers injured in the conflict, he said.

The government also will have to pay back with interest money it borrowed to finance the war, which will drive total costs higher, he told Congress’s Joint Economic Committee earlier this week.

The Congressional Budget Office said last month that $752 billion will have been appropriated so far for the Iraq war, the conflict in Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terror once lawmakers approve the remainder of President George W. Bush’s 2008 war-funding request. The administration’s request for $70 billion more for fiscal 2009 would push that past $800 billion.

Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes release their new book, called the “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,” starting this month.

By Dawn Of Liberty | March 2, 2008   

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=7845#more-7845

In this year’s presidential election, God has blessed us in a manner of sharp contrast with, on the one hand, a candidate(now serving a 10th term in Congress) who truly represents America and the ideals of our forefathers, and on the other hand, a variety of other candidates inclined to all manner of unconstituitional evil, some to a greater, some to a lesser degree.

Can one believe this is a coincidence? Or is our Creator giving America it’s final warning?

Our forefathers warned us that character and virtue would be the great security of our Constitution, and America’s God-fearing common man the backbone. Did they not warn us that with the signing of the Declaration of Independence the American people became bound by the laws of God? Because the sins of the fathers take several generations to be visited upon posterity, does this change the equation?

We see many Christian-leaders seemingly unwilling to support rightness, make conscious choices and Godly decisions. Is it that they are so politically-conditioned as to compromise their higher self and the soul’s judgment by submitting to, and opting for, a mere “lesser evil?” Do they not realize and value what our forefathers died for?

Were they to listen to their higher self, could they not hear the great words of our forefathers echo from the realms above, and their souls thus cry out with righteous indignation in the face of wrong?

Do our modern day church leaders not realize to what great accountability their souls are held to their flocks?

As for me, better to be excommunicated from the church than from my own soul. My God has asked what it profits a man to gain the whole world, if it be at the expense of his higher self. I think it’s time to start listening to this higher self, or God have mercy on us!

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

The “pause” is now official, replacing the surge. Once the summer’s withdrawal of five-plus brigades from Iraq is completed, a broad consensus of defense leaders appears to believe, a period of consolidation and reorganization will follow with the remaining U.S. forces. This period will take us into the general elections, during which time the likelihood of any significant change in Iraq is slim.

The pause makes sense, if for no other reason than a new president should be allowed to make his or her own policies for the future, regardless of what he or she is promising now on the stump.

Beware, though: This road to the pause has been in play for some time, and those in the military and defense establishment who believe that the United States requires a long-term presence in Iraq are quietly putting in place the pieces that will indeed tie the next president’s hands. This isn’t some conspiracy to install “permanent bases” in Iraq. What is unfolding is much more insidious.

Gen. David Petraeus now says that it would be “sensible and prudent” to pause with the drawdown of forces once the surge troops return this summer. “The consensus is that when you have withdrawn over one quarter of your combat forces — it’s literally a quarter of our brigade combat teams plus two Marine battalions and the Marine expeditionary unit – that it would be sensible and prudent to have a period of consolidation, perhaps some force adjustments and evaluation before continuing with further reductions,” Petraeus told Army Times.

With all eyes on the number of troops physically stationed in Iraq, one of the ways in which further reductions will be allowed is by shifting missions to other Persian Gulf countries, a process that is already underway. In Kuwait, for instance, the Army is completing the finishing touches on a permanent ground forces command for Iraq and the region, one that it describes as being capable of being a platform for “full spectrum operations” in 27 countries around southwest Asia and the Middle East.

Permanently deployed with the new regional headquarters in Kuwait will be a theater-level logistical command, a communications command, a military intelligence brigade, a “civil affairs” group and a medical command. “These commands now have a permanent responsibility to this theater,” Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace told the Mideast edition of Stars and Stripes. “They’ll have a permanent presence here.”

The Air Force and Navy, meanwhile, have set up additional permanent bases in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman. By permanent I mean large and continuing American headquarters and presences, most of which are maintained through a combination of coalition activities, long-standing bilateral agreements and official secrecy. Tens of billions have been plowed into the American infrastructure. Admiral William J. Fallon, the overall commander of the region, was just in Oman this week after a trip to Iraq to secure continuing American military bases in that country.

When a war with Iran loomed and World War III seemed to be gaining traction in the Bush administration, this entire base structure was seen as the “build-up” for the next war. The build-up of course began decades ago, but since 9/11, the focus has been almost exclusively “supporting” U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is there, but to interpret the planting of the American flags and the moving of chess pieces as being focused on Tehran is to miss what is really going on.

Regardless of who is elected, in the coming year U.S. combat forces in Iraq will undoubtedly continue to contract to a fewer number of combat brigades and special operations forces focused on counter-terrorism and the mission of continuing to train and mentor the Iraqi Army and police forces. Much of the “war” that is already being fought is being supported from Kuwait and other locations, and the ongoing shifts seem to point to an intent to increasingly pull additional functions and people out of harm’s way.

Of course they will not be out of harm’s way at all, because a permanent American military presence in the region brings with it its own dangers and provocations. But most important what it brings for the next president is a fait accompli: a pause that facilitates a drawdown that begins to look a lot like a continuation of the same military and strategic policy, even at a time when there is broad questioning as to whether this is the most effective way to fight “terrorism.”

Original Article 

 by Chuck Baldwin
February 22, 2008

The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a “D” behind their name. But put an “R” behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.

Nowhere is McCain’s chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain’s failing grade is well deserved.

John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every “person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law].”

John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called “Campaign Finance Reform” bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain’s pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.

In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.

For example, if John McCain’s proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

But there is so much more to the McCain madness.

Former California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson wrote this about John McCain, “He’s [McCain’s] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.

“Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO’s (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence.”

Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he obviously will be).

I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain’s phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they–conservatives and gun owners–are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans?

For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation’s most rabid anti-gunners. GOA’s Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being “as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy.” Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers, and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless give us more of the same.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called “assault weapons” ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state’s driver’s license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.

Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of America’s most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation: Congressman Ron Paul.

I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. John McCain may have an “R” behind his name, but he is just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford.

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

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

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080222.html 

Original Article

by Anthony Gregory 

Every year in mid-February, tens of millions of Americans take the Monday off in celebration of the presidency. And while the average civics teacher will tell you that we do not appreciate our national political heritage nearly enough, the typical American is not only too respectful of the presidency on this day; he is far too enamored of the institution all year round.

The president of the United States has far more power than any office in the history of humanity. It is trite even to make the comparison. The current president claims the right to detain, torture and kill anyone on earth and to start wars and occupations in any nation of his choice. He claims the right to levy taxes on anything, prohibit anything, mandate anything, spy on anyone, and demand that all jurisdictions on the planet bend to his will. While the laws of economics limit his actual power to alter reality, the pure destructive potential of the modern presidency is beyond unspeakable. Nuclear holocaust, prospectively amounting to the greatest atrocity ever, is generally within his reach.

No matter who is president, it ends up costing many people their lives. Practically all US presidents go to war and kill foreigners. Even the best modern presidents, like Warren G. Harding, violated the Bill of Rights and acted at times like a despot. Even the great Grover Cleveland gave America an income tax, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and some questionable precedents in foreign diplomacy and federal police powers. He was arguably the best. Another fairly decent one was Martin Van Buren, but his conduct on the Trail of Tears is unforgivable. The revered Jefferson administration was in many ways a big mess.

This is the best it gets. The worst presidents, for their part, rank among the greatest political criminals in world history. (And these tend to be the ones we’re supposed to admire most.)

Most Americans want to keep the modern presidency, even as they argue passionately over which would-be tyrant should fill the spot. The differences between candidates are seldom significant and every year the major choices become worse.

Sure, someone with Ron Paul’s rare principle and dedication could do great things as president, but only so long as public opinion supported retrenchment of the state. Only to that extent can a politician facilitate big steps toward liberty. Ron has of course contributed greatly to that public opinion, but he is the first to acknowledge that it is a classical liberal culture, and not great men standing alone, that makes a free society.

In other words, even the president himself ironically has not the power to bring down the modern presidency, whose demonic power is much greater than any single holder of the office and is a reflection of a national political climate worshipful of presidential supremacy. Even after seven years of Bush, that overall climate is still dismal. Consider McCain, Hillary and Obama. All of them promise change, and yet all three want to keep the basic infrastructure of the imperial presidency. They all want to greatly expand the presidency in one way or another. McCain promises ever more war. Hillary wants to nationalize medicine.

Obama promises lots more spending but he is an interesting case. He actually terrifies me precisely because I find him rather likeable. When a radical libertarian finds something to like in a statist of this caliber, you know we are dealing with a dangerous politician.

His appeal is somewhat understandable. Of course, much of Obama’s program is anathema, but on crucial issues like war and civil liberties, he sounds much less crazed than Bush, McCain or Hillary. Listen to the conciliatory way he puts things. He sounds much less offensive to many basic old liberal principles than the others.

Then it hits me. He’s not saying anything at all, really, except what everyone wants to hear. He is a masterful politician and represents what most Americans want out of their president – someone they can be proud of and feel good about, someone to shape their warm and fuzzy view of what it means to be American. This view varies somewhat, depending on the group, from the center left/progressive coalition that backs Obama to the neocon/theocon/Wall Street Bush coalition. But it is clear that most all Americans want a president they can respect.

I don’t. I don’t want Americans to get their faith back in the presidency. It is a horrible institution and the more the people give it blind trust based on the personality they see, the more awesome its power and abuses. In the 1970s, the presidency was gloriously disrespected and thus relatively impotent. Reagan brought faith back into the presidency, at least for the right and center. Clinton later did the same for the left and center. Their administrations were quite detrimental for American liberty.

Modern politicians get votes not mostly on their policies but rather on how they make people feel about America. When Americans favor the president more, they also tend to think more highly of the presidency. They want more from their government, and are less bothered when it commits great wrongs. It has been populist solidarity with the state that has created the democratic leviathan of the 20th century, with all its power to bomb, usurp and torture. Vast American pride in the presidency is what has allowed it to become the nation’s master and such a menace to the world.

Americans shouldn’t look to the president for their self-respect, patriotism and cultural identity. The presidency in its current form is entirely too powerful and thus an inherently corrupting and inhumanely destructive thing. The presidency as it supposedly should be, under the Constitution, is a relatively humble office overseeing the executive branch, one of three composing a radically restrained government with very limited enumerated powers. Today, the presidency overshadows the other branches, the states, and all Constitutional and statutory limits on its power. In any event, why should 300 million people, and to a great extent the rest of the world, have to live under one all-powerful law enforcement official? The whole idea seems like some kind of insanity. How did this become the American way? If we are to restore our freedom, we need our compatriots to snap out of this trance. The silver lining in the Bush administration has been the disgust he has elicited so universally, especially among the left and center. This has constrained his actions somewhat. I am not looking forward to the many Americans turned off by the obvious horrors of the Bush administration once again respecting and trusting the president.

Short of a mass campaign against the omnipotent presidency itself, which Ron Paul’s has come closest to representing in modern electoral history, no presidential bid is going to excite me much. I prefer the president kill far fewer people and loot the country less. I prefer fewer peaceful prisoners to more. But we will all lose out on peace, freedom and wealth so long as Americans love and celebrate the presidency, looking to it as savior, moral guardian for the nation, stabilizer of the economy, provider of goods and necessities, protector against evil and liberator of the world. Indeed, given the choice between an Obama, Hillary or McCain who might breathe new life into the presidency and restore the respect and awe it once elicited; or, on the other hand, the stale, despised and pathetic George W. Bush, I am more than tempted to say: Four More Years!

February 18, 2008
Anthony Gregory [send him mail] is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is a research analyst at the Independent Institute. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.
Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com 

by Chuck Baldwin
February 19, 2008

“In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.” Daniel 5:5 (KJV)

“And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided.” Daniel 5:26-28 (KJV)

Secularists will not admit it, but nations rise and fall at the pleasure of Almighty God. America’s founders certainly understood this fact. Even Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the least spiritual of America’s Founding Fathers, told the delegates at the constitutional convention, “We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

Our first and greatest President, George Washington, agreed with Franklin. He said, “No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.”

Thomas Jefferson, too, believed that nations rose and fell before God. He 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 of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”

The sentiments expressed by Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson were expressed almost universally by America’s founders. From the founding of these United States and throughout most of our history, people (even our leaders) understood that “God governs in the affairs of men” (Franklin). We understood that it was not so much our military might, industrial strength, or financial stability, but divine blessing that secured our liberty. We believed that scriptural injunction, “The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.” Proverbs 21:31 (KJV) However, it appears obvious that most Americans (including Christians), and especially most of our political leaders, have forgotten this principle.

As a result, many of us are asking the question, Is the handwriting on the wall for America? Have our days been numbered by God? Is our republic finished? Will God divide and conquer our country? Many are suggesting that the signs indicate the answer is yes.

For one thing, we have a federal government that is totally out of control. The checks and balances that were built into our Constitution have been all but eviscerated. For the most part, the people have no real input into their governance anymore. Between Big Media, Big Business, and vote fraud, even honest and fair elections may be a thing of the past.

The American people cannot trust their government spokesmen–or the media that is entrusted with the task of keeping them honest–to tell them the truth. The dishonesty and duplicity of our political and business leaders have produced an almost universal distrust among the American people. We have been lied to so often that it is hard to remember when we were last told the truth by almost anyone in Washington, D.C., especially at the Executive level.

We have been lied to about the Kennedy assassination, the USS Liberty, Waco, 9/11, the war in Iraq, the Oklahoma City bombing, and virtually every other major American tragedy. It is to the point that we cannot believe ANYTHING that this government–and its toadies in the media–tells us. Even our Christian leaders have bought into this deception.

Either wittingly or unwittingly, our Christian leaders are party to deceiving the American people. For example, not only do they refuse to do any serious investigation into the shenanigans of the Bush administration, they refuse to even listen to the factual investigations that have been done. Willful ignorance has destroyed the Church in America today.

Just look how our illustrious Christian leaders are beginning to coalesce around the corrupt candidacy of John McCain (as if a McCain Presidency would be any better than a Democratic one).

Remember, it was Senator John McCain who single-handedly shut down the investigation and effort to bring home American POWs from Vietnam and surrounding countries. Why would a former POW do such a thing, unless, as reported by other Vietnam Vets who are in the know, it was to keep those POWs from coming home and testifying to McCain’s collaboration with his communist captors?

Remember, it is Senator John McCain who is committed to granting amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. It is John McCain who has an F- grade from the Gun Owners of America for his miserable anti-Second Amendment voting record in the U.S. Senate. It is John McCain who was the ringleader of the infamous (not to mention unethical) Keating Five, who cost America taxpayers more than $160 billion.

As a longstanding member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), John McCain will most definitely support the march toward a North American Union, the NAFTA superhighway, and the creation of a North American currency, called the AMERO. He will also pursue George W. Bush’s neocon policy of empire building and preemptive war. As Pat Buchanan said, “John McCain will make Dick Cheney look like Gandhi.”

(I encourage readers to take a look at my previous expose’ on John McCain at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080208.html )

Add to the above the collaboration between Big Business and Big Government in a continual, covert conspiracy to spy on the American people. See how our government is selling America’s financial interests–not to mention our security interests–to foreign powers. Good grief! Our government is even selling our own infrastructure to foreign powers.

Notice, too, how those who refuse to go along with this New World Order are treated by the political and media establishments. See how they virtually ignored Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, and Tom Tancredo. Even the liberal Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, was ignored and lampooned, because he dared to question the globalist agenda of the elites in Washington, D.C., and New York City. See, especially, how they demonized Congressman Ron Paul. As Dr. Paul’s campaign grew, so did the attacks against him from the media and political elites. Even Christian leaders opposed him.

I was one of only a handful of Christian ministers with any kind of a national following who publicly endorsed Ron Paul. Where was John Hagee? Where was Pat Robertson? Where was James Dobson? Where was Tony Perkins? They were all supporting establishment neocons Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, or even Rudy Giuliani.

I continue to support Ron Paul, although I believe the only way he can effectively bring his revolution to the forefront of America is to seek the Presidency via a third party ticket. I, therefore, strongly urge Dr. Paul to continue his Presidential campaign by obtaining the nomination of the Constitution Party. (It is his for the taking, should he pursue it.) The Republican Party is too corrupt, too sympathetic to New World Order ideologues to allow principled patriots such as Ron Paul to obtain the nomination. In fact, a John McCain administration will finish whatever semblance of conservatism yet remains in the GOP. McCain’s nomination makes it all the more imperative that we break the two-party death grip that is choking the life out of America. If Ron Paul would take the bull by the horns right now and run as a third party candidate, he just might be the man who could do it. Otherwise, it is just another sign that the handwriting is already on the wall.

Of course, America’s pastors and churches are in the unique position of being able to lead our people to a revival of honesty and integrity. Yes, they have the power to restore Biblical principles and constitutional government to America’s public life. However, it would first require that they step away from their own infatuation and preoccupation with money and power long enough to see the handwriting themselves. That they refuse to do so is another sign that the handwriting is already on the wall.

One does not have to possess the gift of prophecy to read the signs. The handwriting is there as plain as day in letters large enough that even a blind man can read them.

Christians should not bury their heads in their theology books, however. Instead of wringing their hands and simply waiting for Jesus to return, we need to get in the fight to restore our constitutional republic. The foundation is still there; and millions of people–churched and unchurched–are ready and willing to fight with us. Plus, who can tell what God will do with a serious effort to restore liberty and independence in this land?

As Patrick Henry said during our initial struggle for independence, “[W]e shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”

Is the handwriting on the wall for America? Yes it is. But that does not mean there is nothing we can do. We can do everything we should do, knowing that there is a God in Heaven who “presides over the destinies of Nations.” The fact is, the friends of liberty Patrick Henry spoke of may be found in the most unlikely places and faces. So be it. We are not trying to build a Sunday School class; we are trying to preserve our constitutional republic.

In so doing, we need political leaders such as Ron Paul, spiritual leaders such as Pastors Tony Romo and James Riddle (for my list of “Black Regiment” pastors, go here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/blackregiment.php ), educators such as David Alan Black and Steven Yates, business leaders such as Frank Fluckiger and William H. Ball, Jr., attorneys such as Edwin Vieira, Jr., and Herb Titus, journalists and writers such as Jerome Corsi and John McManus, film makers such as Ron Maxwell, and everyday patriots such as you and me.

Besides, God may think it is time to divide the kingdom out of the hands of the globalist elitists and place it back where it belongs: with “We the people.” What say you?

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

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

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080219.html

from TheWatchFiles Website
“…they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men.” Dan 2:43 

This list was sent anonymously but a lot of the names can be verified by others in files on this site and others who expose government corruption, black projects, coverups and aliens. Here are things as they stand from one who “sees”: If you see your name on this list and you would like to protest, just send us an email and we’ll post it.

I’m not claiming these people weren’t 100% human at one time, what I am saying is that they invited the control and bodily takeover of Reptilians through blood drinking and rituals and now can be bodily overtaken by them or possessed against or within their own will.

Keep in mind, we all have the ability to see these humans/reptilians for what they are and how they really are. Just pray for God to reveal it to you. Being a reptilian is something that must be activated through drinking blood and ritual among those who possess the serpent DNA. Not all those who possess this DNA are reptilian. Reptilians in human form are also called shapeshifters and can go between looking human one second, and a lizard-like reptilian the next. For more information on blood and rituals click here

Notable Reptilians:

  •  George Bush Sr.

  • George Bush Jr.

  • Richard Cheney

  • Al Gore

  • Colin Powell

  • Queen Elizabeth and all 4 sons including Prince Charles and Prince Andrew

President Bush’s Cabinet

Cabinet Positions & Cabinet Officials

  •  Attorney General John Ashcroft — High order Reptilian

  • Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — High Order Reptilian

  • Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson-High Order Reptilian

  • Interior Secretary Gale Norton — Alien controlled

  • Secretary of State Colin Powell –Reptilian of the Highest Order

  • Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill — Reptilian

President Bush’s Advisors

  • White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card

  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mitch Daniels — Alien controlled

  • National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice — Alien — other type(Secretary of State)

Senators of the 107th Congress

  • Akaka, Daniel (D – HI) Reptilian

  • Allen, George (R – VA) Reptilian

  • Bayh, Evan (D – IN) — Alien/other type

  • Biden Jr, Joseph (D – DE) — Reptilian(Early Pres. Candidate Dems)

  • Bond, Christopher (R – MO) — Reptilian

  • Boxer, Barbara (D – CA) — Alien supported

  • Bunning, Jim (R – KY) — Alien supported

  • Byrd, Robert (D – WV) — Reptilian

  • Campbell, Ben Nighthorse (R – CO) Pleiadean (fallen to the other side)

  • Carper, Thomas (D – DE) — Alien supported

  • Clinton, Hillary (D – NY) –Alien/other type(Presidential Candidate)

  • Conrad, Kent (D – ND) –Alien/other type

  • Crapo, Mike (R – ID) — Alien supported

  • Daschle, Thomas (D – SD) –Reptilian(Lost office 2004)

  • Dodd, Christopher (D – CT) — Alien supported(Early Pres. Candidate)

  • Domenici, Pete (R – NM) –Reptilian

  • Dorgan, Byron (D – ND) — Reptilian

  • Durbin, Richard (D – IL) –Alien supported

  • Feingold, Russell (D – WI) — Alien/other type

  • Graham, Bob (D – FL) — Reptilian

  • Gramm, Phil (R – TX) — Reptilian of high office

  • Harkin, Tom (D – IA) — Alien of high office(Iowa)

  • Hollings, Ernest (D – SC) — Alien /other type

  • Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R – TX) — Alien supported

  • Inouye, Daniel (D – HI) –Reptilian

  • Kennedy, Edward (D – MA) –Very high reptilian(Obama Supporter)

  • Leahy, Patrick (D – VT) — Reptilian

  • Lieberman, Joseph (D – CT) –Very high alien/other type( McCain Supporter)

  • McCain, John (R – AZ) — Alien hybrid (Republican Presidential Candidate)

  • Nickles, Don (R – OK) — Alien/other type

  • Reid, Harry (D – NV) — Alien supported (Senate Majority Leader)

  • Rockefeller IV, John (D – WV) –Reptilian of very high office/leadership

  • Santorum, Rick (R – PA) Alien/other type

  • Sarbanes, Paul (D – MD) Very high (nasty) alien type

  • Specter, Arlen (R – PA) __Very high reptilian

  • Thurmond, Strom (R – SC) Alien/other type(deseased)

  • Warner, John (R – VA) Reptilian/Warrior Leader

    Reptilian’s in the House
    (Not exactly The West Wing)
    House of Representatives:

    • Aderholt, Robert; Alabama, 4th (Reptilian and group leader of other aliens)
    • Armey, Richard; Texas, 26th (Alien/other breed)
    • Baird, Brian; Washington, 3rd (Alien/other type)
    • Baldwin, Tammy; Wisconsin, 2nd (Reptilian)
    • Barrett, Thomas; Wisconsin, 5th (Alien/other type)
    • Becerra, Xavier; California, 30th (Reptilian)
    • Bilirakis, Michael; Florida, 9th (Reptilian of High Office)
    • Blunt, Roy; Missouri, 7th Reptilian of High Office)
    • Bonior, David; Michigan, 10th (Very high Reptilian–Leader of sub-group)
    • Boucher, Rick; Virginia, 9th (Reptilian–high office)
    • Brown, Henry; South Carolina, 1st (Reptilian — very high order)
    • Callahan, Sonny; Alabama, 1st (Reptilian –other type)
    • Capito, Shelley; West Virginia, 2nd (Alien –other type)
    • Carson, Brad; Oklahoma, 2nd (Reptilian –very high officer)
    • Clayton, Eva; North Carolina,1st (Reptilian –very high order)
    • Condit, Gary; California, 18th (Levy died because she found out his secret–he’s Reptilian –not such a high order (obviously)
    • Crenshaw, Ander; Florida, 4th (Reptilian –very high order)
    • Culberson, John; Texas, 7th (Extremely high order reptilian)
    • Davis, Susan; California, 49th (Reptilian)
    • DeFazio, Peter; Oregon, 4th (Reptilian–very high order)
    • DeLay, Tom; Texas, 22nd (A leader of the Reptilians here on planet Earth)
    • Doggett, Lloyd; Texas, 10th (Reptilian –very high order)
    • English, Phil; Pennsylvania, 21st (Reptilian commander)
    • Flake, Jeff; Arizona, 1st (Reptilian, leader of lesser order)
    • Fossella, Vito; New York, 13th (Alien –other type)
    • Gilchrest, Wayne; Maryland, 1st (Reptilian –very high order)
    • Goss, Porter; Florida, 14th (Reptilian/alien hybrid)
    • Green, Mark; Wisconsin, 8th (Alien –other type)
    • Gutierrez, Luis; Illinois, 4th (Reptilian –very high order)
    • Hansen, James; Utah, 1st (Reptilian leader)
    • Hefley, Joel; Colorado, 5th (Reptilian leader)
    • Hobson, David; Ohio, 7th (Alien–other type)
    • Houghton, Amo; New York, 31st (Reptilian –very high order)
    • Hyde, Henry; Illinois, 6th (Reptilian of the Supreme Command (er)
    • Jackson-Lee, Sheila; Texas, 18th (Reptilian –other type)
    • Jones, Walter; North Carolina, 3rd (Reptilian –High Command)
    • Kennedy, Patrick; Rhode Island, 1st (Alien influenced)
    • Kind, Ron; Wisconsin, 3rd (Reptilian –supreme command)
    • Langevin, James; Rhode Island, 2nd (Reptilian –First Order)
    • Lewis, John; Georgia, 5th (Reptilian)
    • Luther, Bill; Minnesota, 6th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Markey, Edward; Massachusetts, 7th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • McHugh, John; New York, 24th (Reptilian –extremely High Order)
    • McNulty, Michael; New York, 21st (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Miller, George; California, 7th (Reptilian –Extremely High Order)
    • Nethercutt, George; Washington, 5th (Reptilian –Supreme Command)
    • Owens, Major; New York, 11th (Reptilian –Extremely High Order)
    • Pence, Mike; Indiana, 2nd (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Platts, Todd; Pennsylvania, 19th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Rahall, Nick; West Virginia, 3rd (Reptilian)
    • Rangel, Charles; New York, 15th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Rodriguez, Ciro; Texas, 28th (Reptilian)
    • Ryan, Paul; Wisconsin, 1st (Reptilian)
    • Serrano, Jose; New York, 16th (Reptilian –High Order)
    • Shimkus, John; Illinois, 20th (Alien –other type)
    • Slaughter, Louise; New York, 28th (Reptilian)
    • Stearns, Cliff; Florida, 6th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Strickland, Ted; Ohio, 6th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Thomas, William; California, 21st (Reptilian –High Order)
    • Walsh, James; New York, 25th (Reptilian –Very High Order)
    • Weller, Jerry; Illinois, 11th (Alien –other type)
    • Wilson, Heather; New Mexico, 1st (Reptilian)



by Chuck Baldwin
February 15, 2008

It is time to say it: the two major parties hold a death grip on the American people. Instead of representing the people, both the Republican and Democrat parties are bought and paid for by special interest groups and multinational corporations. Neither party pays any attention to the U.S. Constitution but both are largely marching in lockstep toward bigger and bigger government. Both Republicans and Democrats eagerly sacrifice what’s good for the country for what’s good for the party. As they now exist, neither major party deserves the support of patriotic Americans.

Furthermore, blind allegiance to the two major parties has created a “lesser of two evils” mindset that has warped the thinking and perverted the values of otherwise good people. What people would never accept in any other venue of society, they gladly and willingly accept from their chosen party’s candidates.

People expect honesty and integrity from clergymen, bankers, doctors, businessmen, realtors, journalists, and even used car salesmen. Those same people, however, quickly tolerate and even excuse dishonesty and chicanery from their chosen political party.

Ever since George W. Bush became President of these United States, I have watched in disbelief as my fellow Christian conservatives have not only looked the other way as Bush repeatedly betrayed conservative/constitutional principles, but have willingly and enthusiastically supported his apostasy. Many of them are continuing to do the same thing by supporting the Big-Government, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, pro-100-year war, grubby candidacy of John McCain. Good grief! Pat Robertson even endorsed the soiled candidacy of the liberal cross-dresser, Rudy Giuliani.

It is clear, therefore, that conservatives are more than willing to support and defend someone they know to be unfaithful to both their oath of office and to bedrock conservative principles. In other words, it does not matter a whit to them whether their candidate tells the truth, obeys the Constitution, or even demonstrates fidelity to the fundamental principles of liberty. If he has an “R” behind his name, conservatives will support him.

However, the same people who will justify dishonesty in the lives of their favored party’s politicians would never accept such conduct from anyone else. Furthermore, many of these conservatives actually call themselves Christians; many are preachers. They preach and teach the virtues of honesty and integrity from the pulpit. They teach boys and girls to be honest and virtuous: to put the principles of right above personal wealth or benefit. Then, they turn around and support these lying politicians, many of whom are fornicating, greedy, arrogant reprobates. What is even more amazing is that they find no inconsistency with what they are doing.

In his Farewell Address, our first and greatest President, George Washington, eloquently lobbied the American people to guard against over-infatuation with political parties. Anyone reading his warnings today will be impressed with his insight and wisdom. Virtually everything he predicted has come to pass. Blind loyalty to political parties has corrupted our public institutions, blinded the hearts and minds of the American people, and opened wide the door to undue foreign influence.

If everyone who believes and teaches honesty and accountability would put it into practice when they walk into the voting booth, we could put a stop to this pathetic practice of electing dishonest and despicable people to high public office. Instead of hiding their own character and integrity under the bushel basket of party partisanship, voters could be proud of the fact that they are actually helping to set the ship of state aright by electing men and women of honesty and character.

Although I do not share this opinion, many people believe Abraham Lincoln to be one of America’s greatest presidents (I think he was one of the worst). Personal opinion aside, it is a fact that Lincoln’s election and subsequent influence upon this country was huge. Therefore, it is more than significant to realize that Lincoln was first elected from a four-person race with only 39% of the popular vote. Even more significant is the fact that at that time the Republican Party was a minor party, having been formed only a few years earlier. So much for the argument that a minor party cannot win a major election.

In practically every Presidential election, there are candidates from a variety of independent or “third” parties on the ballot. To ignore them merely because they are not Republicans or Democrats is absurd. Furthermore, it is more than obvious that the GOP will not tolerate principled candidates running for President. The recent Presidential candidacies of Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul make this abundantly clear.

While it may still be appropriate to support state and local Republican candidates, at the Presidential level, it is waste of time–and a wasted vote–to support the establishment Republican candidates. They are all Big-Government liberals. Yes, that includes Mike Huckabee.

I recommend that people seriously consider voting for a Third Party candidate this November. Start by taking a close look at the Constitution Party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The Constitution Party (the third largest political party in America) has a proven track record of fidelity to pro-life, conservative principles and to constitutional government. I further believe it is time for principled columnists and journalists such as Charley Reese to start encouraging voters to support principled, independent candidates. The same goes for leaders of the Religious Right such as Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and Phyllis Schlafly. For them to continue to ignore good, independent candidates only serves to strengthen and augment the two-party death grip.

It is more than interesting that more people are currently registered as Independents than either Republican or Democrat. But it is not enough to register as an Independent, we must start voting Independent. Remember, the object is to elect honest and honorable leaders for our country, not to promote and protect the private agendas of the fat cats who control the two major parties.

It increasingly appears that the two major parties will force the American people to choose between the fascistic John McCain or the Marxist Barack Obama. Is that really the kind of choice we are willing to accept? Are we really content to continue to vote the “party line,” no matter what damage results?

Let’s face it, folks: the two major parties are strangling the life out of this country. It is indeed a death grip. Something drastic must be done, and it must be done NOW! Since it does not appear that either major party is salvageable (at the national level), it is up to “We the people” to take matters into our own hands. This means bypassing the mainstream press and relying more on the Internet for our news and information. And it means bypassing the two major parties and voting for Independent candidates for President.

If Michael Bloomberg throws his hat in the Presidential ring, it will already be a three-man race. A strong independent conservative contender would make it a viable four-man race (just like 1860). At that point, anything could happen. But first, we must awaken to the reality of the two-party death grip, and then decide to do something about it. I am ready. How about you?


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

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

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080215.html