Archive for the ‘Ron Paul’ Category



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:

© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

by Chuck Baldwin

March 11, 2008

Over the past several months, I have been privileged to attend (and sometimes endure) several significant gatherings of a variety of conservatives. Some of the meetings were large; others were small. The meetings sometimes featured mostly grassroots activists and sometimes very high-profile and notable conservative icons. In some of these meetings, I was allowed a platform to speak; in others, I was merely a spectator. In most of the meetings, there was a large percentage of Christian conservatives present. The meetings occurred in locations all over the country.

After witnessing the philosophizing, postulating, and pontificating of the various conservative speakers (or those to whom I spoke in private conversation), I am left with the very profound and distinct impression that the so-called conservative movement is dead. It is not dying: it is dead. Totally and thoroughly dead.

Oh, the spokesmen (and women) of the various conservative organizations will strongly argue that the conservative movement is as alive and vibrant as ever. They are either delusional or in denial. The truth is, there is no conservative movement in America today.

Most conservatives–even Christian conservatives–have embraced philosophies and ideals that are antithetical to genuine conservatism. In fact, my experience with these people leads me to the conclusion that today’s conservatives do not even know what true conservatism is–or was.

For example, I could not tell you how many times I have listened as speaker after speaker praised and promoted the candidacy of the “conservative” John McCain. These are the same people, mind you, that in 2004 properly identified McCain as the conservative phony that he was–and still is. Many of the same conservative organizations that rejected and repudiated McCain’s 2004 candidacy now boldly extol its virtues. But it is not John McCain that has changed: it is today’s conservatives.

The reason for this reversal of “convictions” is that this time John McCain is the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee. And if today’s conservatives believe in anything, they believe in the Republican Party. They might turn their backs on their best friends; they might forsake their pastor and church; they might even divorce their wife or husband; but, one thing they will not do is forsake the Republican Party. This rabid devotion to the GOP has made mincemeat out of a once-great movement.

Of course, there are modern-day prophets. Men such as Alan Keyes, Judge Roy Moore, and Ron Paul, for example. For the most part, however, America’s conservatives–including Christian conservatives–have dismissed these “voices in the wilderness” with either utter contempt or wholesale indifference. These prophets are about as welcome as an outbreak of influenza.

Even as a pastor, I am not immune to the odious attitudes and actions of Christian brethren. I have seen people I thought were my closest friends–people I have helped in untold ways–turn and walk away, without so much as a goodbye. I have watched as my own dear wife and children have been subjected to insults, tongue-lashings, and even obscene gestures by these “loving” Christian brothers and sisters. I have witnessed my preacher brethren refuse to even “reason together” over the omnipresent threats to our liberty and independence.

The beginning of the end came when Christian conservatives began idolizing President George W. Bush. They have done this to the point that they have come to accept just about any and all abuses against the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration principles, and even our very way of life. Furthermore, they have become robotic foot soldiers for universal and everlasting war. At the same time, however, they see no harm in the decimation of individual liberties, as long as it is a Republican who is stealing them. But these same Christians will cry and wail–to the point of almost cutting themselves–against the thought of a Democrat doing the same thing. But, pray tell me, since when does it matter what the brand name is on the tyrant’s sword? Are not our liberties just as dead?

But look at how our modern prophets have been treated. Alan Keyes has been forcibly removed from debate platforms, only to be released in remote, crime infested neighborhoods at night by Republican Party operatives. Roy Moore was lampooned and utterly destroyed by Republican Party operatives (including those within George W. Bush’s White House) in his attempt to become Alabama’s governor. And, in his recent Presidential campaign, Ron Paul has been subjected to the most insidious attacks by Republican Party operatives that I have ever witnessed.

Regardless of how the Republican Party has compromised, capitulated, and castrated genuine conservative principles, conservatives–including Christian conservatives–continue to refer to the GOP as “God’s Own Party,” and other such nonsense. In fact, the current lapdog performance of modern conservatives to the candidacy of John McCain demonstrates just how far down the road of destruction they will go in order to grovel before the Republican Party.

National Right to Life even had the gall to say that it is “grateful” for John McCain’s “strong pro-life” record. What balderdash! McCain has repeatedly voted to spend Title X tax dollars to underwrite the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. He publicly supports killing unborn babies conceived via rape or incest. And he continues to lie to the American people about killing babies “to save the life of the mother,” which almost any OB/GYN doctor will tell you almost NEVER occurs. According to the OB/GYN physicians that I have spoken to, the only pregnancies that pose a legitimate health risk to the mother are those where the unborn baby has already perished.

How can National Right to Life–an organization that once vociferously opposed Senator McCain–now compromise the life issue in such an egregious manner and support the corrupt candidacy of John McCain? I’ll tell you how: NRL is bought and paid for by Republican donors. And that is the problem with the vast majority of our “conservative” organizations today. As the old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

In fact, I will say it straight out: there is no hope for America within today’s conservative–even Christian conservative–movement. None. Zero. Zilch.

The closest movement to reclaiming America’s freedom and independence was the recent Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. With Congressman Paul effectively neutered and neutralized (by a hostile media and mercenary Republican hierarchy), the only hope is in America’s churches and a burgeoning independent movement.

I only wish I could expect today’s pastors and churches to stand in the gap for our nation. They have the power to thwart the forces of globalism, corporatism, elitism, and liberalism that are destroying America. So far, however, this has been nothing but wishful fantasy. Most of our beloved Christian leaders are as beholden to the same Republican donors as are the previously mentioned conservative organizations. And just as impotent.

That leaves The Constitution Party as the only political party with the courage and convictions to set the ship of state aright. With someone such as Judge Roy Moore at the helm, true Christians and constitutionalists would at least have an opportunity to vote for someone in November without being forced to hold their noses and surrender their principles.

After attending numerous meetings of conservative activists, I am more convinced than ever that, ultimately, the survival of liberty in America does not depend upon political parties, special interest groups, or corporations. In these United States of America, God has put the destiny of the country squarely in the hands of “We the people.” It will not be conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, Christians or unbelievers that restore America. It will be individuals from all walks of life, all backgrounds, and all political persuasions who love liberty enough to fight to maintain it. Ultimately, of course, all nations–just like all individuals–must give an account to our Creator for how we protected the freedoms and liberties that He gave us. Right now, we are not doing a very good job.

*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:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

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 Dawn Of Liberty | March 2, 2008

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!

“How can we ask one young American

to die for a neocon empire?”

Dr. Ron Paul U.S. Congressman

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 

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: )

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: ), 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:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

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.

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:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

 Editors Note: I do not agree with the solutions stated here. Having said that, I do believe that if anyone from either party is elected President this country is headed for big trouble. i can only see one candidate willing to stand against the current tyranny that our government is practicing. That is Ron Paul.

Without a radical change in leadership we will see our own Military in the streets and, probably,  UN troops as well. We are becoming more fascist each day. 

Testimony of a US ex-marine, who went to fight in Iraq

From:  informationliberation                Article posted Feb 02 2008, 12:33 AM

By Rosa Miriam Elizalde, Cuba News

“I’m 32 and I am a trained psychopathic murderer. The only things I can do are to sell youths the idea of joining the marines and kill. I am not able to keep a job. For me civilians are despicable people, mentally retarded and weak persons, a flock of sheep. I am their sheepdog. I am a predator. In the army they used to call me Jimmy, the Shark”.

That was part of the second chapter of the book Jimmy wrote three years ago, with the assistance of journalist Natasha Saulnier, and which was launched at the 2007 Caracas Book Fair. Cowboys of Hell is the most violent testimony that has been written thus far based on the experience of a former member of the Marine Corps, one of the first to arrive in Iraq during the 2003 invasion. A is determined to tell, as many times as necessary, what having been a merciless marine for twelve years meant to him and why the Iraq war changed him.Jimmy participated as a panelist at the fair’s main workshop, which had a controversial title: “The United States, the Possible Revolution” and his testimony possibly had the strongest expected impact on the audience. He has his hair cut in the military style and wears sun glasses; he walks with martial air and he has his arms covered with tattoos. He looks just like what he used to be: a marine. But when he speaks he looks different: he is someone marked by a horrifying experience from which he tries to keep other unwary youths away. As he assures in his book, he has not been the only one to have killed people in Iraq; that was a permanent practice by his fellow men. Four years after having abandoned the war, he still feels he is being chased by his nightmares.

Q: What do all those tattoos mean?

A: I’ve got a lot of them. I was tattooed in the military. Here in my hand (he shows his thumb and his ring finger), you can see the Blackwater logo, the mercenary army founded where I was born, there in North Carolina. I had this one done in an act of resistance because marines are not allowed to tattoo the area between their wrists and their hands. One day the members of my platoon got drunk and we all had the same tattoo done: a cowboy with bloodshot eyes over several aces, representing death. It means exactly what is going on: “you killed somebody. ” On the right arm is the marines’ logo with the flags of the United States and Texas, where I joined the US armed forces. On my chest, here on the left side there is a Chinese dragon ripping the skin and which means that pain is our weakness leaving our body. What kills us makes us stronger.

Q: Why did you say that you had met the worse people ever in your life in the US Marines?

A: The United States only has two ways of using the marines: to undertake humanitarian missions and to kill. Over the 12 years I was with them, I never took part in humanitarian missions.

Q: Before you went to Iraq you recruited youths for the marines. Can you describe a recruiting officer in the United States?

A: A liar. The Bush administration has forced the US youths to join the armed forces and what the government basically does �and I did too�is trying to get people through economic incentives. During three years I recruited 74 youths who never told me that they wanted to join the armed forces because they wanted to defend their country or due to any patriotic reason. They wanted to get money to go to university or get a health insurance. So, I would first tell them about all those advantages and only in the end I would tell them that they will serve our homeland. I never happened to recruit the son of a rich person. In order to keep our job, we as recruiting officers, could not think of any scruples.

Q: I understand that the Pentagon has been less demanding as to the requisites to join the army. What does that mean?

A: recruiting standards have enormously been eased, because almost nobody wants to join in. Having mental problems or a criminal record is no longer a problem. Persons that have committed felonies can join the army; that include those who have been given over-one-year sentences, which is considered a serious crime. Also accepted are youths who have not concluded high school studies; if they pass the psychological test, they can join the army.

Q: You changed after the war, but could you tell me about your feelings before that?

A: I felt just like the other soldiers who believed what they were told. However, since I began my recruiting work I felt bad about it: as a recruiting officer I had to tell lies all the time.

Q: But, you believed that your country was involved in a fair war against Iraq.

A: Yes, Intelligence reports we received read that Saddan had weapons of mass destruction. Later, we found out that everything was a lie.

Q: When did you find out you had been deceived?

A: Once in Iraq, where I arrived in March 2003. My platoon was ordered to go to the places formerly controlled by the Iraqi army and we saw thousands of thousands of ammunitions in boxes bearing the US label; they were there since the US had supported the Saddan government against Iran. I saw some boxes with the US flag on them and I even saw American tanks. My marines�I was a sergeant with E-6 category, a staff sergeant, which is a higher rank and I had 45 marines under my command� would ask me why there were US ammunitions in Iraq. They couldn’t understand it. CIA reports said that the Salmon Pac was a terrorist camp and that we would find chemical and biological weapons there, but we found nothing. In that moment I began to think that our real mission in Iraq was focused on oil.

Q: The most disturbing lines in your book are those in which you describe yourself as a psychopathic murderer. Could you explain why you said that?

A: I was a psychopathic murderer because I was trained to kill. I was not born with that mentality. It was the Marines that trained me to be a gangster in the interest of US corporations, a criminal. They trained me to fulfill, without thinking, the orders of the President of the United States and bring him what he asked for, without any moral consideration. I was a psychopath because we were trained to shoot first and ask later, as an insane person would act, not a professional soldier that is to face another soldier. If we had to kill women and children, we would do it; therefore, we were not soldiers, we were mercenaries.

Q: What specific experience of yours made you reach that conclusion?

A: Well, there were some of them. Our mission was to go to different cities and guarantee security in the roads. There was an accident in particular�and many others as well which really put me in a serious situation. It was about a car with Iraqi civilians. All intelligence reports said that those cars had bombs and explosives on board. That was the information that we received. When those cars approached our areas we made warning shots; when they did not slow down to the speed we indicated, we would shoot at them without ceremony.

Q: You shot at them with your machineguns?

A: Yes, We expected to see explosions every time we riddle the cars with bullets; but we never heard or see an explosion. Then we opened the car and all we found was people killed or wounded, not a single weapon, not a single Al Qaeda propaganda, nothing. We only found civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Q: In your book, you also described how your platoon machine-gunned peaceful demonstrators. Is that right?

A: Right. In the surroundings of the Rasheed Military Complex, South of Baghdad and near the Tigris River, there was a group of people staging a demonstration, right at the end of the street. They were youths; they had no weapons. So, when we advanced, we saw a tank parked on one side of the street, the driver told us that they were peaceful demonstrators. If those Iraqi people had had any violent intentions, they would have blown up the tank; but they did not. They were only staging a demonstration. That calmed us down because we thought that “if they were there to shoot at us, they had already had enough time to do so. ” They were standing about 200 meters from our patrol.

Q: Who gave the order to shoot at the demonstrators?

A: We were told by the high command to keep watching those civilians, because many combatants with the Republican Forces had taken off their uniforms and were wearing civilian clothes to undertake terrorist attacks against US soldiers. The intelligence reports we received were known basically by every member in the commanding chain. All marines were well aware about the structure of the commanding chain that was set up in Iraq. I think that the order to shoot at the demonstrators came from high-rank US administration officers, which included both military intelligence agencies and governmental circles.

Q: And what did you do?

A: I returned to my vehicle, my Humvee (a highly equipped jeep) and I heard the sound of a shot over my head. My marines started shooting, so did I. We were not shot back, and I had already shot 12 times. I wanted to make sure that we had killed people according to combat requirements set by the Geneva Convention and the operational proceedings established in the rules. I tried not to look at their faces, I only looked for weapons, but I found none.

Q: How did your superior officers react at that?

A: They told me that “shit happens. “

Q: And when your marines found out that they had been deceived, what was their reaction?

A: I was second in command. My marines asked me why we were killing so many civilians. ” Can you talk to the lieutenant? “, the answer was “No”. But when they found out that it all was a lie, they were really mad.

Our first mission in Iraq was not aimed at offering humanitarian assistance, as the media said, but to secure oil fields in Bassora. In the city of Karbala, we used our artillery during 24 hours; it was the first city we attacked. I thought we were there to give the population food and medical assistance. Negative. We kept on advancing towards the oil fields.

Before arriving in Iraq we went to Kuwait. We got there in January 2003 with our vehicles loaded with food and medicines. I asked the lieutenant what we were going to do with all those supplies, since we had little room for us with so much stuff. He told me that his captain had ordered him to download everything in Kuwait. Shortly after that, we were ordered to burn everything, all the food and the medical supplies.

Q: You have also denounced the use of depleted uranium�

A: I am 35 years old and I only have 80 percent of my lung capacity left. I have been diagnosed a degenerative disease in my backbone, chronic fatigue and pains in my tendons. You know, I used to run 10 kilometers just because I liked to run, and now I can only walk between 5 and 6 kilometers every day. I am afraid of having children because of that. I got a swollen face. Look at this picture (He shows me the photo on his Book Fair credential). This photo was taken shortly after I returned from Iraq. I look like Frankenstein. I owe all that to depleted uranium, now you can imagine what is happening to the people in Iraq.

Q: And what happened when you returned to the United States?

A: They treated me as if I were crazy, as if I were a coward, a traitor.

Q: Your superior officers have said that all you have revealed is a lie.

A: There is overwhelming evidence against them. The US armed forces are finished. The longer the war, the bigger chance for my truth to be known.

Q: The book you have presented in Venezuela has been published in Spanish and French. Why haven’t you published it in the United States?

A: The publishing houses have requested the elimination of real names of the people involved and the presentation of the war in Iraq in sort of a mist that makes it less crude, and I am not willing to do that. Publishing houses like New Press, an alleged left wing entity, refused to publish the book because they fear to be involved in a dispute raised by the people described in the story.

Q: Why some media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post never reproduced your testimony?

A: I never echoed the official version of the facts, which says that US troops were in Iraq to help the people; I never repeated their story that civilians there died in accidents. I refused to say that. I did not see any accidental shooting against the Iraqi and I refused to lie.

Q: Have you changed that stance?

A: No. What they have done is to add opinions and books by people with conscious objections: those who are against the war in general or those who participated in the war but who did not have this kind of experience. They are still reluctant to look straight to reality.

Q: Do you have any photos or documents that may prove what you have told us?

A: No, I don’t. They stripped me of all my belongings when I was ordered to return to the United States. I returned home only with two weapons: my mind and a knife.

Q: Do you think there is a short-time solution to the war?

A: No, I don’t think so. What I see is the same policy being practiced either by democrats or republicans. They are the same thing. The war is a business for both parties, since they depend on the Military Industrial Complex. We need a third party.

Q: Which one?

A: the party of Socialism.

Q: You have participated in a workshop titled “The United States: The Revolution is Possible. ” Do you really think that a revolution could take place in the United States?

A: It has already begun to take place in the South, where I was born.

Q: But southern United States has traditionally been the most conservative zone in your country.

A: That changed after Katrina. New Orleans looks like Baghdad. The people in the South are indignant and they wonder every day how comes that Washington invests in a useless war and in Baghdad, while it has not invested in New Orleans. You must recall that the first big rebellion in the United States started in the South.

Q: Would you be willing to visit Cuba?

A: I admire Fidel and the Cuban people, and if I am invited to visit, for sure I would. I do not mind what my government might say to me. Nobody will control me.

Q: Do you know that the symbol of US imperial despise against our nation is precisely a photo depicting some marines as they urinated on the statue of Jose Marti, who is the Cuban National Independence Hero?

A: Yes, I do. In the Marine Corps they spoke of Cuba as a US colony and they taught us some history. As part of his training, a marine must learn facts about the countries he is expected to invade, as the song goes.Q: What song, the marines song?

A: (singing) “ From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli

“Q: That means that the marines want to be in all parts of the world?

A: Their dream is to control the world, no matter if in that effort we all are turned into murderers.

From informationliberation

        by Rep. Ron Paul

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the US Constitution.

The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.” Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.

We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government’s illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to “upgrade” FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!

The only legitimate “upgrade” to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States . Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States . This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

 Ron Paul was biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter

 Andrew Malcolm  February 01, 2008

Well, it’s official, ladies and gentlemen. Believe it or not, Rep. Ron Paul, the 72-year-old Texan who hardly ever gets mentioned in Republican political news and the one-time libertarian who always gets the least time on TV debates if he isn’t barred completely, was, in fact, the most successful Republican fundraiser in the last three months of 2007.

By a Texas mile.

By the thousands, Paul’s fervent followers donated $19.95 million to the “Ron Paul Revolution.” He spent $17.75 million, and at year’s end, had $7.8 million cash on hand, making him the only Republican candidate to increase his fundraising totals in every quarter of 2007. According to his website, Paul’s Paulunteers have contributed another $4.1 million this month to…

fuel the strict constitutionalist’s travels and advertising campaign.

Compare that impressive financial success with, say, ex-candidate Rudy Giuliani, who raised only $14.4 million from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 and spent $18.2 million.

Or the departed Fred Thompson, who collected $8.9 million and spent $13.9 million.

Or even the newly-minted Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain, who raked in only $9.9 million, spent $10.5 million and had only $2.9 million cash in hand. Of course, McCain’s string of primary victories in January will have boosted his financial fortunes. Everybody loves a winner.

Mitt Romney actually raised only $9.2 million from other people last quarter, less than half of Paul’s haul. However, the former Massachusetts governor — and if he keeps spending at this rate, the quite possibly former multimillionaire — gave himself $18 million more of his own money last fall for a total of $27.2 million and $2.4 million cash on hand.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who’s had trouble raising money, issued an unusual statement Thursday night. “My presidential campaign,” he said, “has defied the odds and will continue to do so, as we head into the Super Tuesday primaries, proving the power of message over money and mechanics.”

The statement did not include any Huckabee figures for the fourth quarter. Which suggests that the winner of the Republican caucuses in Iowa didn’t have a very good fourth quarter.

So a certain suspicious blogger, led by the experienced hand of The Times’ campaign finance expert Dan Morain, went to the website of the Federal Election Commission and looked up Huckabee’s fourth-quarter report. It seems he raised about $6.7 million, a third of Paul’s sum, while spending $7.08 million, leaving him on New Year’s Eve with cash on hand of only $651,300.68. No wonder he didn’t mention numbers in the news release.

Now, this month Huckabee will have received some donations after his Jan. 3 Iowa win. But it does raise serious questions about how long the Arkansan can continue to compete after Feb. 5 or even how much he can do before other than get on as many free radio and TV shows as possible.

Paul, who’s done well in some symbolic straw polls and little-noticed state caucuses until his best showing so far as a second-place finisher to Romney in the Nevada caucuses, has repeatedly disavowed a third-party effort if his bid to be the Republican nominee in St. Paul next summer falls short.

His determined followers maintain that a news media conspiracy is holding down Paul’s success at the polls, although obviously word has gotten out to somebody for him to raise such sums. Paul’s outspoken stands, including withdrawal from Iraq and drastic downsizing of the federal government, run counter to each of his GOP competitors.

As for Paul’s campaign, his loyal troops plan another “money bomb,” a big fundraising day, today in honor of Ron and Carol Paul‘s 51st wedding anniversary. One of the obvious gifts: the undisputed GOP fundraising championship for the last three months of 2007.