Have American Christians Forgotten About The Pastors Who Helped Win Our Independence?

This Sunday, April 19, is rightly identified as “Patriots’ Day.” In truth, April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate Patriots’ Day as enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful that many Americans don’t remember what happened on this day back in 1775. This was the day the “shot heard ’round the world” was fired. It was the day America’s War for Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren (who dispatched Paul Revere to Lexington and Concord with the news), Pastor Jonas Clark alerted his male congregants at the Church of Lexington that the British army was on its way to seize the colonists’ weapons and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock. Both men had taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home with about a dozen of the pastor’s men guarding the house. Other men from the congregation (around 75-80 in number) stood with their muskets on Lexington Green when over 800 British troops appeared before them at barely the break of day.

According to eyewitnesses, British soldiers opened fire on the militiamen without warning (the British command to disperse and the British opening salvo of gunfire were simultaneous), immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen took cover and returned fire. These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. Again, this took place on Lexington Green, which was located in the shadow of the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. The men who were guarding Adams and Hancock escorted them out of harm’s way shortly before the troops arrived. Without a doubt, the heroic efforts of Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen at the Church of Lexington saved the lives of Sam Adams and John Hancock. And eight of those brave men gave their lives protecting two men who became two of America’s greatest Founding Fathers. But, mind you, Jonas Clark and his men are as important to the story of America’s independence as any of our Founding Fathers.

According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who died on Lexington Green on that fateful April morning: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John Brown–all of Lexington–and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.

By the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen; these two elements of American history are lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was attempted gun confiscation by the British troops that ignited America’s War for Independence, and 2) it was a pastor and his flock that mostly comprised the “Minutemen” who fired the shots that started our great Revolution.

With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of the Pilgrims,” as one Colonial pastor’s descendent put it.

It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America would not exist.

Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence–and, in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.

James Caldwell

James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em Watts!” story.

During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the colonial militia ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell galloped to the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals, threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer Isaac Watts, of course.

The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah, in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name today.

John Peter Muhlenberg

John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock, Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia, Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes, chapter three to his congregation. He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past–and it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.

Muhlenberg was later promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental Army, and later, major general. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

Joab Houghton

Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House at worship when he received the first information regarding the battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

“[M]ounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he beckoned the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first, words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston; then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly, ‘Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?’ And every man in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William. Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876, rev. 1976. Print.)

Jonas Clark

As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.

On the one-year anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor, Church of Lexington.”  You can find the book here:

Nordskog Publishing

In the Introduction to the book, Gerald Nordskog writes this about Pastor Clark:

“As the pastor of the church at Lexington, he typically gave four sermons a week, written out and orally presented–nearly 2200 sermons in his lifetime. His preaching was vigorous in style, animated in manner, instructive in matter, and delivered with uncommon energy and zeal, with an agreeable and powerful voice. His sermons were rarely less than an hour, often more.”

Nordskog then quotes the Rev. William Ware, who wrote the following a little less than one hundred years after the Battle of Lexington:

“It can be regarded only as a singularly happy circumstance that, as Lexington was to be the place where resistance to the power of England was first to occur, and the great act of a declaration of war first to be made by the act of the people in the blood to be there shed, making the place forever famous in history, the minister of Lexington should have been a man of the principles, character, courage, and energy of Mr. Clark.

“It can be regarded he was eminently a man produced by the times–more than equal to them; rather a guide and leader. All his previous life, his preaching, his intercourse and conversation among the people had been but a continued and most effectual preparation for the noble stand taken by his people on the morning of the 19th of April, 1775. The militia on the Common that morning were the same who filled the pews of the meetinghouse on the Sunday morning before, and the same who hung upon the rear of the retreating enemy in the forenoon and throughout the day. They were only carrying the preaching of the many previous years into practice.

“It would not be beyond the truth to assert that there was no person at that time and in that vicinity–not only no clergyman but no other person of whatever calling or profession, who took a firmer stand for the liberties of the country, or was more ready to perform the duties and endure the sacrifices of a patriot, than the minister of Lexington.

“When the struggle actually commenced, the people were ready for it, thoroughly acquainted with the reasons on which the duty of resistance was founded, and prepared to discharge the duty at every hazard. No population within the compass of the Colonies were better prepared for the events of the 19th of April, than the people of Lexington; no people to whom the events of that day could more safely have been entrusted; none more worthy of the duties that fell to their lot; or who better deserved the honours which have followed the faithful performance of them. No single individual probably did so much to educate the people up to that point of intelligence, firmness, and courage, as their honoured and beloved pastor.”

Of course, Clark, Houghton, Muhlenberg, and Caldwell were not the only ones to participate in America’s fight for independence. There were Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr. John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina. Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.

So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence that, at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)

And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our fight for independence, so many pastors throughout Colonial America preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits that the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment (referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and example of Colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown and win America’s freedom and independence.

I invite readers to visit my Liberty Church Project website. We are currently engaged in the noble endeavor of helping to resurrect the patriot-pulpit throughout the United States. Perhaps we could help you. Here is the website:

Liberty Church Project

This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers. So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the destruction of its liberties? Where are the preachers to explain, expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ? Where are the pastors to preach the truth about Romans chapter 13?

Readers should know that my constitutional attorney son, Tim, and I have co-authored a blockbuster book dealing with Romans 13. The book is entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” It can be ordered at:

Romans 13: The True Meaning Of Submission

Plus, I also delivered four messages dealing with Romans 13. The message series is entitled, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” These four video messages have been recorded on one DVD and may be ordered at:

Romans 13 DVD

I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is in the sad condition it is in today is because the sermons most Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits refuse to deal with the salient issues of the day; and, therefore, our Christian people are mostly uneducated and ignorant of the great Biblical truths relating to liberty and Natural Law. This milquetoast preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” misinterpretation of Romans 13, have made it next to impossible to find Christian men with the courage and resolve, and even more importantly, the knowledge and understanding, to stand against the assaults on our liberties.

America cut its spiritual teeth on the powerful preaching and exemplary examples of men such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and, yes, Jonas Clark. That most churches do not have pastors such as these is the main reason America is in the miserable condition it is in today.

Then again, for the most part, our churches have the kind of pastors they want, don’t they? I wonder just how many churches today would even tolerate the kind of sermons Jonas Clark delivered. So, ask yourself, dear Christian friend: if you claim to be a patriot, why do you stay in a church that lacks a patriot-pastor? We have the kind of government we vote for and the kind of church we attend and give to. Think about it.

At any rate, this Sunday, April 19, marks one of the most significant dates in American history. And it is significant, in great part, because of the courage and sacrifice of a pastor and church congregation. I wonder how many pastors across the country will even mention it from the pulpit this Sunday. I wonder how many people in the congregation will miss it if they don’t.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate 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.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Rand Paul: Pros And Cons

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

On Tuesday of this week, Rand Paul made it official that he is a candidate for the office of President of the United States. As I did with Ted Cruz a few weeks ago when he announced his candidacy for President, I want to give readers a preliminary assessment of Senator Paul’s pros and cons. Be mindful, again, that this is a preliminary assessment and is subject to change as more information becomes available.

For those who may not know, Rand’s father, former congressman Ron Paul, and I have been friends for many years. I campaigned heavily for Ron’s presidential campaign in 2008, and again in 2012. I even represented Ron in some notable Republican campaign events during that time. And I also spoke on the same platform with Ron and introduced him in several large rallies. And, after Ron dropped out of the Republican primary in 2008, I was approached by many of his supporters to carry the liberty message into the general election as the Constitution Party’s candidate for President. This I did; and when I did, Ron publicly endorsed my candidacy. Through my friendship with Ron, I had the privilege to meet Rand; and, as with his father, I like Rand a lot. Readers need to know that up front.

That said, this preliminary assessment of Rand’s candidacy will be intellectually honest and objective. Readers need to know that, too.

Pros:

*He is his father’s son

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the greatest U.S. congressman in our country’s history. While we have had several outstanding U.S. House members, no one can match Ron’s incredible record. Without a doubt, Ron Paul is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most preeminent champion of liberty. And you know the old saying: the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I believe that is certainly true with Ron’s son, Rand.

And you can believe that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., believe that, too. As soon as Rand announced his candidacy, neocons such as Senator Lindsey Graham began their attacks against him. Graham went so far as to say that Rand Paul’s foreign policy is worse than Hillary Clinton’s. (That’s because Graham and Clinton are both warmongers, and Rand isn’t.) Rest assured, the GOP establishment will spend the entire primary season trying to make sure that Rand Paul does not receive the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s foreign policy

This is where Rand Paul shines. Like his dad, Rand believes in a constitutional foreign policy. He is opposed to America’s foreign wars of aggression. He is opposed to America’s preemptive war doctrine instituted by G.W. Bush. He is opposed to the Warfare State and all of the entangling alliances that go along with it. In fact, Rand Paul is the ONLY candidate for President from either the Republican or Democrat party who would probably make any significant change in America’s foreign policy.

And quite frankly, the office of President is mostly defined by foreign policy; and in this regard, Rand is probably the only candidate that would be willing to defy the war-mad neocons and bring America’s founding principles back to our State Department and DOD. Ted Cruz won’t do it; Ben Carson won’t do it; Scott Walker won’t do it; Marco Rubio won’t do it; Mike Huckabee won’t do it; Mike Pence won’t do it; Rick Santorum won’t do it; Chris Christie won’t do it; Jeb Bush won’t do it; Hillary Clinton won’t do it; and neither will Martin O’Malley. In reality, when it comes to foreign policy, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Except for Rand Paul, that is. Rand is the ONLY presidential candidate who would potentially restore a constitutional foreign policy to the United States.

*Rand Paul is solid on the Bill of Rights and the right to life

Rand Paul is solid on the right to life and the Second Amendment. But unlike the rest of the presidential candidates, Rand is also solid on the rest of the Bill of Rights. In the name of the “war on terror,” politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., have mostly eviscerated the Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Fourth through Tenth Amendments are mere words on paper. Both Republican and Democrat congresses have gutted them to the point that they are unrecognizable from their original intent. Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate who would probably use the power of the office to alleviate, or perhaps even dismantle, the burgeoning Police State in this country. This is another reason why Lindsey Graham and other neocons in Washington, D.C., hate Rand Paul.

*Rand is the Republican who has the best chance of winning the general election in 2016

Rand’s popularity will come from just about every quarter, except the Washington establishment. He will pull support from not only conservative, Tea Party, and patriot groups, but also from libertarians, independents, college-age and young Americans, and anti-war Democrats.

An MSN report notes, “Paul’s speeches and media coverage have helped him break out of the Republican field. In very early trial heats of the presidential race, Paul regularly gets closer to Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, than his so-called establishment rivals. In a March poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Paul tied Clinton in Pennsylvania, a state no Democratic candidate for president has lost since 1988.”

See the report at:

Rand Paul Begins 2016 Presidential Campaign, Aiming at ‘Washington Machine’

Rand’s challenge will be winning the Republican nomination. The GOP establishment will go all out to defeat him. But, if he can prevail in the Republican primary, he would undoubtedly be the strongest GOP candidate in the general election. But, remember, the Republican establishment would rather lose with neocons like John McCain and Mitt Romney than win with a principled freedomist like Rand Paul. So, Rand has his work cut out for him.

Cons:

*Illegal immigration and amnesty

So far, Rand has been soft on his stance against illegal immigration and Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals. Rand’s principal opponent in the GOP race will be Ted Cruz; and Cruz’s tough stance against illegal immigration and amnesty is very popular with most Republican voters. If Rand continues to take a soft position on illegal immigration, it will give Cruz a leg up with many of the GOP electorate.

*His support for Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell

The decision to support Mitt Romney for President in 2012 cost Rand a lot of popular support. Romney was a Democrat in Republican clothing. Romney’s socialized medicine program in liberal Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obamacare. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. And Mitt Romney flipped-flopped on so many issues (including the life issue) that he more resembled Silly Putty than he did a serious presidential contender. There was no telling which way Romney was going to bounce next. And Mitch McConnell is the consummate establishment politician. No genuine conservative respects McConnell.

I understand why Rand endorsed Romney and McConnell. He was trying to show the Republican Party that he was willing to work with the GOP leadership. Plus, as the freshman senator from Kentucky, he didn’t want to make a political enemy out of Kentucky’s senior senator (and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader). But endorsing Republican candidates that were fundamentally flawed positionally and constitutionally was something Ron Paul was never willing to do. And that uncompromising commitment of Ron Paul was one of his most endearing qualities. As such, I am extremely honored to be the only candidate for President since Ronald Reagan that Ron Paul endorsed. In my opinion, that says more about Ron than it does me.

When Rand endorsed Romney, it angered untold numbers of principled conservatives. That anger still exists. These folks are worried that Rand will be too willing to work with unprincipled Republicans in the future. This fear is something Rand MUST successfully assuage if he is to unify the base that he needs to win the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s recent homage to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby

This is another area where Rand’s father, Ron, was never willing to compromise. Ron had a constitutionally-correct understanding of America’s relationship with Israel and other Middle Eastern nations. And due to the constitutional ignorance (and scriptural misinterpretation regarding the modern state of Israel, thanks mostly to preachers such as John Hagee) of most Christian conservatives, it was this issue that most alienated many of them from Ron’s presidential campaigns. Doubtless, Rand is trying to circumvent that potential opposition from within the conservative Christian community by showing them, “See, I am not my father.”

Noted political researcher and analyst Joel Skousen put this in perspective recently, saying, “Rand Paul has the same problem [as Ted Cruz]. He’s decided that he can’t get ahead in politics without being a yes-man to the Israeli lobby, and so he takes his pilgrimage to Israel, meets with Netanyahu and other politically connected Israelis and pledges to stand with Israel. The problem with that position, as I’ve explained many times in the WAB [World Affairs Brief], is that Israel’s leaders are all compromised globalists (especially Netanyahu) so Christians have to learn to separate their allegiance to God’s promises of restoring the house of Israel to their homeland and the aggressive globalist policies of the Israeli government.” Amen!

What most Christian conservatives don’t seem to understand is that Ron Paul’s position on Israel (and other foreign nations) is actually the best policy to help the people of the Middle East (including Israelis) that the United States could possibly have. The neocon, pro-war, New World Order (NWO) policies that began under George H.W. Bush, and that continue to the present, are the most destructive policies in the entire world at present. The entire world (including the United States and Israel) are suffering (and will suffer) incalculable tragedy at the hands of these wicked globalists if they are not soon deterred. How tragic that Christian conservatives–who sincerely believe they are being a blessing to Israel by supporting a neocon foreign policy agenda–are actually assisting Israel and America’s worst enemies. And, once again, no other presidential candidate from either party will potentially do anything to challenge the neocon, NWO agenda. If Rand Paul doesn’t do it, no other Republican or Democrat presidential candidate will.

Obviously, it is too early for me to actually endorse a presidential candidate. I am willing to say that, at this juncture, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the two men who seem to stand out. But, since Ted Cruz’s foreign policy is in lockstep with the neocon agenda, and IF Rand Paul can continue to demonstrate a genuine commitment to oppose a neocon foreign policy, he would definitely have a leg up in my book.

And unlike many conservatives, I am NOT impressed with Dr. Ben Carson. His support of government-forced vaccinations is anathema to any person who truly understands the principles of constitutional government and liberty. Anyone who could claim to be opposed to Obamacare and then support government-forced vaccinations is truly confused and directionless.

See the report at:

Carson: No Exemptions On Immunizations

Plus, Dr. Carson talks out of both sides of his mouth regarding gun control. He says he supports the Second Amendment, but then he turns around and says that “It depends on where you live.”

“Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.

“Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: ‘There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.’

“But when asked whether people should be allowed to own ‘semi-automatic weapons,’ the doctor replied: ‘It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,’ Carson elaborated. However, if you live ‘out in the country somewhere by yourself’ and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, ‘I’ve no problem with that.’”

See the report here:

Ben Carson On Gun Control

I’m sorry; the Second Amendment is an issue I will NOT compromise on. And Dr. Carson’s statements demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the liberty principles behind the Second Amendment. It is those people who live in the most populous–and, therefore, the most dangerous–areas that most require a semi-automatic weapon (rifle or pistol) with which to defend themselves. What good does a firearm do if one is “out in the country somewhere by yourself”? Dr. Carson demonstrates vast ignorance regarding the God-given duty of self-defense. So, I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I will NOT be supporting Ben Carson for President.

So, again, this is my preliminary assessment of Rand Paul’s candidacy. And as I said in my column assessing Ted Cruz’s candidacy, I reserve the right to adjust my thinking one way or another as more information becomes available.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate 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.

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Operation Jade Helm: Should We Be Worried?

Boston militarized policetank

For two months this summer, the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) will conduct Realistic Military Training (RMT) Operation Jade Helm 15 (JH 15) in seven Southwestern U.S. states: California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Military spokesmen say the operation is merely a standard training exercise designed to prepare Special Forces troops for warfare overseas.

According to the London Daily Mail, Army spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria said: “‘This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.’”

Units participating in the operation include Army Green Berets, Navy SEALS, USAF Special Operations Command, USMC Special Operations Command, USMC Expeditionary Units, Army 82nd Airborne Division, and Interagency Partners (whatever and whoever that is). Over 1,200 troops will participate. For purposes of the exercise, the states of Utah and Texas, and parts of southern California, are designated as “hostile.” Local mayors and county commissions have been notified of the operation and have already signed off on it.

To be sure, the U.S. military often conducts off-base exercises; there is nothing new about that. However, this operation might be the largest off-base training exercise on the U.S. mainland. It is certainly one of the most aggressive.

In this exercise, Special Forces troops will practice all sorts of activities including extractions, searches and seizures, urban camouflage, etc. According to the Houston Chronicle, “[A]mong the planned exercises, soldiers will attempt to operate undetected among civilian populations.

“Residents, in turn, will be asked to report suspicious activity in order to gauge the effectiveness of the soldiers.”

See the London Daily Mail report here:

Special Forces Set To Swarm Southwest And Operate Undetected Among Civilians In Massive Military Exercise

According to USSOCOM, the exercises will only be conducted between 11pm and 4am. Pray tell, how difficult will it be for Special Forces troops (the best of the best) to operate undetected and “blend in” during the middle of the night? That part of the military’s description makes no sense to me at all.

We already have millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on mass media advertising that tells people, “If you see something, say something.” Now we are going to “practice” reporting “suspicious activity”? Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when such an idea would have been considered abhorrent by the American people as resembling Nazi Germany or Red Russia too much. Then again, most of our World War II generation has passed, hasn’t it?

The Internet is abuzz with speculation that these exercises are not designed to prepare U.S. troops for overseas operations, but are actually designed to prepare U.S. troops for aggressive operations against the American citizenry.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, ever since 9/11, our federal government has targeted America’s homeland for all sorts of surveillance, spying, snooping, etc. The National Security Agency (NSA) routinely collects virtually all electronic communications, telephonic transmissions, etc., from the entire American citizenry. The U.S. Congress and federal courts have become nothing more than rubber stamps for an executive branch of government determined to know the most intimate details of every person in the nation. The United States now has the dubious distinction of being the most spied-on country in the history of the world.

For the first time in U.S. history, we have U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), a full active military division (3rd Infantry Division), assigned to the Continental United States. We have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has turned our local and State police agencies into miniature military units, and has armed them with all sorts of military weaponry and equipment–including some of the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering equipment in the world.

The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, NDAA, etc., authorize the federal government to basically treat the U.S. citizenry as “enemy combatants.” As far as the passage of these laws is concerned, we Americans have already lost our right to trial by jury, habeas corpus, the right to have an attorney, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be secure in our persons, houses, effects, etc. Martial Law may not be the experience of most U.S. citizens YET, but understand that the laws are already in place for such an event.

The whole idea of practicing “extractions” (a nice word for kidnappings) in U.S. cities sends chills up my spine. Using the aforementioned laws, this kind of activity has already been made “legal” in this country. So, first we have laws authorizing such activity, and now our military troops are practicing doing it? Please tell me, again, how we have nothing to worry about.

Folks, please take a look at what is happening in this country: our local and State police are being militarized; we have ubiquitous laws being proposed and passed (by both major parties) denying the Bill of Rights; we have Twentynine Palms Marine Corps surveys asking Marines if they would turn their guns on the U.S. citizenry; we have repeated attempted gun confiscation coming from Washington, D.C.; we have hundreds of military field-grade officers being dismissed because of their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution; we have a federal foreign policy that seems hell-bent on inciting most every country in the world against us, while practically giving a red-carpet invitation for any would-be terrorist to waltz across our southern border; we have a CIA that gives some of the most powerful weapons in the world to just about any third-world resistance group (including elements of Al Qaeda and, believe it or not, ISIS) that comes along (The U.S. government is far and away the largest gun dealer in the world!), while its sister government organizations, such as the ATF, think we Americans can’t be trusted with .223 ammunition; we have Democrat and Republican presidential administrations alike that use the IRS as a political mafia against people with dissenting opinions; we have a national news media that has become nothing more than a propaganda ministry for the federal government; we have politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., that can only be described as blood-thirsty war-mongers; we have politicians at the local and State levels who seem determined to turn their communities into a Police State (and some Homeowner Associations are even more Naziesque than the federal government); and, for the most part, we have an apostate, cowardly church pulpit that is doing its dead-level best to turn the Christian people of America into sheepish servants of the state.

I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE GOOD REASON TO BE A LITTLE PARANOID.

I posted a few preliminary thoughts on my Facebook page regarding this subject before writing this column. Here are a few comments from my Facebook followers:

James: “Jade Helm. Jade is blue. Helm is German for helmet. Blue Helmet. UN blue helmets?”

Jeanie:  “Their supposed reasons for this exercise [don’t] make sense. They won’t be blending in with civilians in third world countries. The only purpose I can see is to use force against us one day.”

Mark: “Pastor, just because we are a bit paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t someone out to get us.”

Lou: “‘Blending in.’ LOL.”

Jason: “The exercise itself is not a direct danger. It is, however, practice to [acclimate] soldiers and citizens to military action in their neighborhoods.”

And, of course, there is this kind of response from Terry: “Worry? No! We should worry about you.” [Meaning, yours truly.]

I invite readers to “Like” my Facebook page. I often post comments on my Facebook page that do not make it into my column. Go to my Facebook page at:

Chuck Baldwin Facebook

I realize it is extremely difficult for Americans to believe that their own government could actually turn against them. And, I’m sure that many people will tell me that to think otherwise is alarmist and extremist. But, isn’t that exactly what the citizens of every country overtaken by its own government said? “That can’t happen here,” have been the last words of millions.

The fact is, the vast majority of us cannot know what the true intention of Operation Jade Helm might really be–and that includes the military personnel who are commanding it and participating in it. I am convinced of this much: the federal government–and its propaganda ministry in the national news media–almost NEVER tells us the truth. Of that much, I am absolutely certain.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate 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.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

Texas Senator Ted Cruz made his candidacy for President of the United States official this past week. He is the first Republican to officially jump into the presidential race. He chose my alma mater, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, to make the announcement. Readers immediately inundated me with requests for my thoughts on his candidacy. Today’s column will attempt to answer those requests. Mind you, these are preliminary thoughts, subject to change one way or the other as I learn more about Senator Cruz.

Before I list what seem to me to be more obvious pros and cons of his candidacy, let me say that it is extremely obvious that Mr. Cruz is wanting to “corner the market” on the Christian conservative vote and make them the ideological and political base of his campaign. The fact that he chose Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the country, to make his announcement makes it crystal clear. And if some of the early reactions to the senator’s strategy are any indication of whether Senator Cruz succeeded or not, it may seem that he has taken a big step in that regard.

While the politically potent Religious Right of the Reagan/Bush era is only a shell of its former self, it is a stark reality that no Republican since Richard Nixon has won a presidential race without the enthusiastic support of Christian conservatives. Republican presidential candidates must at least APPEAR “conservative” enough to attract the base of religious conservatives or face a thumping in the general election. If you don’t believe that, just ask John McCain and Mitt Romney. And even though G.W. Bush was no conservative, Karl Rove and Company did a stellar job of packaging him that way. And as we know, more often than not, image garners more votes than reality. Sad but true. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry attempted the same thing in his presidential campaign in 2012, but was never able to make it stick.

By casting himself as the “Christian” candidate, Ted Cruz is trying to follow the campaign script of fellow Texan (and the last Republican to actually win the White House) G.W. Bush. And, of course, Cruz actually worked in the Bush campaign, so he has first-hand experience with it. And this is not something that Cruz feels uncomfortable doing. He is the son of an evangelical pastor and graduated from a Baptist high school. Accordingly, Cruz can naturally talk the language.

Since Jerry Falwell passed away, there is no evangelical leader with the ability and clout to coalesce, lead, and speak on behalf of enough Christian voters to make a lot of difference in Republican politics today. Plus, as a whole, the Religious Right has compromised its principles (and showed itself very ignorant of New World Order issues) so many times, and has disenfranchised so many religious conservatives that, as a movement, the Religious Right really doesn’t even exist today.

However, if one wants to get an idea of what the remnant of the old Religious Right is thinking today, read what my friend Richard Viguerie has to say. Richard is one of the original founders of what became known as the Moral Majority and then the Religious Right. He is still very influential with those who would identify themselves as part of the Religious Right. And Richard has glowing words for Mr. Cruz:

“Today’s official announcement that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is running for president changes everything in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Ted Cruz isn’t running for Vice President or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Jeb Bush administration.

“Every Republican candidate for president will have to move to significantly to the right, starting with Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, and define their position on amnesty for illegal aliens, on fighting and winning the war radical Islam has declared on America, on spending, the deficit and the debt, and on repealing Obamacare, against the positions Ted Cruz will talk about and campaign on in the coming months.

“They will all have to move right to respond to Cruz, or be left behind by a grassroots conservative electorate fed-up with Republican candidates who are merely principle-free messengers for an out of touch Washington elite.

“Ted Cruz’s base is the conservative movement, and although other Republican presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan, such as Gary Bauer and Michelle Bachmann, looked to movement conservatives for their support, they were never able to expand beyond their starting base of support into the top-tier of candidates.

“Ted Cruz is the first top-tier movement conservative candidate since Reagan.”

See Richard Viguerie’s complete statement here:

Cruz is the First Top-Tier Movement Conservative Candidate Since Reagan

I don’t remember Richard making such a statement about Rick Perry in 2012, so the above remarks regarding Senator Cruz from someone of the stature of Richard Viguerie mean that Ted has succeeded (at least initially) in establishing himself as the “Christian” candidate in the 2016 presidential race.

Before leaving this section of the column, let me say that I believe MUCH has changed from 2000, when G.W. Bush was first elected. The compromise and demise of the Religious Right as a political movement means that pseudo-conservatives, such as G.W. Bush, are going to have a much tougher time winning the support of principled freedomists–many of whom are Christians who are fed up with the compromise of professing “Christian” candidates–and many who would not even identify themselves as Christians, but who were once attracted to the political principles of the Religious Right–and who now have lost all respect for the old Religious Right in general and the Republican Party in particular.

Too, the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2008–and especially in 2012–has FOREVER changed the political landscape of America (for the better). The defection of the “Paul Revolutionaries” from the Republican Party has been massive. Yes, many of Ron’s supporters are still very much involved in the GOP; but they are NOT LOYAL to the GOP. Meaning, any Republican candidate for President will have to EARN the vote of these people. They will not receive their vote simply because they wear the Republican label. Again, ask McCain and Romney if you don’t believe that.

Therefore, while it is still good strategy for a Republican presidential candidate to court the evangelical vote, it will not, by itself, carry the same momentum throughout the primary and general election seasons like it did with G.W. Bush in 2000. And as far as Cruz pulling the rest of the GOP field to the right, most every Republican candidate attempts to characterize him or herself as a “conservative” during the primaries, a Ted Cruz candidacy notwithstanding. Of course, Jeb Bush is counting on the big dollars of country club, NWO elites to buy him the nomination. Big-Government globalists everywhere must be salivating over another potential Bush vs. Clinton (not that Hillary has the Democrat nomination sewed up, because she doesn’t) presidential election. It would mean the Crime Family (no matter which one would win) would be back in the White House.

At any rate, here are some of my preliminary assessments of Ted Cruz.

Pros

*The “Christian” candidate

His ability to cast himself early on as “the” Christian candidate will definitely be a plus as he approaches the primary season.

On a personal note, I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, Christians on the whole are very naïve to vote for political candidates based on his or her “Christian” profession alone. Just about every politician in the country claims to be a Christian. That, by itself, means very little to the actual performance of most elected officials. It SHOULD, but it doesn’t. But for the purpose of this column, I’m saying that Mr. Cruz’s decision to not shy away from a Christian testimony should not be regarded as a negative–especially in light of all of the anti-Christian bias in the establishment media.

*His voting record in general

He has a cumulative voting record of 89% by The Freedom Index of The New American magazine. The Freedom Index is one of the best barometers of a congressman or senator’s constitutional voting record that I know of. That Cruz is right at 90% on The Freedom Index is nothing but a positive.

See his rating on The Freedom Index here:

Ted Cruz’s Profile-The Freedom Index

*His leadership against illegal immigration and executive amnesty

Senator Cruz must be regarded as one of the Senate’s most outspoken opponents of Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order in particular and illegal immigration in general.

*As far as I can tell, Mr. Cruz is solid on the Second Amendment and pro-life issues

For me, these two issues are deal breakers. I will not vote for ANY candidate that compromises either one of these two issues. In this regard, potential GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson is going to have problems, as he is on record as strongly advocating additional gun control.

Cons

*His place of birth

Much was made in the Republican Party over Barack Obama’s birthplace. In my personal opinion, those concerns were very legitimate. I’ll say it outright: I believe Obama’s U.S. birth certificate is a forgery. In all likelihood, Obama is indeed the first President of the United States to not be born in the U.S. But, unfortunately, he won’t be the last.

The Republicans nominated John McCain for President in 2008, and McCain was not born in the United States either. Yes, he was born on a U.S. military installation overseas, and his parents were both Americans. So, in the minds of everyone in the Republican Party, McCain met the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution. But with Senator Cruz, there is no question regarding his place of birth. The man was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father was a native-born Cuban who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, and his mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware.

This fact will probably not hurt Ted during the GOP primaries; but should he win the nomination, you can bet that Democrats will make it a huge issue in the general election, especially after all of the controversy that Obama endured over the subject.

Plus, if Ted Cruz should win the White House next year, it would doubtless open the door for just about anyone to run for President no matter their place of birth. Remember, this was the issue that stopped Arnold Schwarzenegger from running for President not too many years ago.

Obviously, many take the position that as long as a person is born to a U.S. citizen, he or she automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of the location of his or her birth. But there is no question that Democrats will make Ted’s birthplace an issue in the general election, should he win the Republican nomination.

*His pro-war foreign policy

In my opinion, this is where the establishment Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is at its WORST. G.W. Bush’s preemptive war doctrine turned the national GOP into a pro-war leviathan. Like most every Republican in Washington, D.C., (except Rand Paul), Cruz has bought into the global “war on terror” apparition that is spawning the New World Order abroad and a Police State at home. There is nothing about Ted Cruz that leads me to believe that he would do anything to stop America’s militarism and hegemony that is wreaking havoc around the world and that is leading our country toward nuclear war.

And one further note on this point: though it is going to be difficult for Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination, as he is the establishment elite’s most dreaded candidate, Dr. Paul would in all actuality be the most formidable Republican presidential candidate in the general election.

More people than ever are not voting. More people than ever are claiming to be political independents. More people than ever have developed strong opinions against both major parties in Washington, D.C. And one of the biggest reasons for this phenomenon is the Warfare State that both parties in D.C. have created. In reality, Rand Paul’s foreign policy is in sync with more Americans across the board than any other potential candidate from either the Republican or Democrat party. Again, pro-war Republicans might look askance at Rand Paul; but in a general election, his appeal would be massive. Look at how popular Dr. Paul is becoming on the college campuses of America. But if the national GOP follows suit, they would rather lose with a candidate like John McCain or Mitt Romney–or any other pro-war candidate–than win with a constitutional foreign policy candidate such as Ron or Rand Paul. But we’ll see. Rand is not officially in the race yet.

*His wife

Ted Cruz is married to Heidi Nelson Cruz. Heidi will be lauded by everyone in the establishment media as very smart, educated (she is), and nothing but an asset to Ted’s presidential efforts. But Heidi gives me nothing but red flags.

Heidi worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice. Heidi is head of the Southwest Region in the investment Management Division of Goldman Sachs & Co and was also an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Heidi is an international investment banker who was invited to be part of a working group at the CFR that reviewed a notorious 2005 paper called “Building a North American Community.” This project was headed by longtime CFR member Robert Pastor and is universally regarded by constitutionalists as the prototype for a North American Union. Of course, Condoleezza Rice herself is a longtime CFR member.

In my opinion, there is no more nefarious organization in the country than the CFR. Without a doubt, it has been the most influential organization over America’s foreign policy affairs of any organization to ever exist. It is the CFR that has long pushed the United States into regionalization and globalism. It is the CFR that is most responsible for pushing America into a New World Order. CFR members litter the presidential administrations of both Republicans and Democrats, which is why no matter which party assumes the White House, nothing changes in the direction of America’s foreign policy. And, of course, Goldman Sachs is, by far, the largest and most influential international banking system in the country. Everything that is harmful to the economic independence of America is spearheaded by Goldman Sachs.

Yes, I realize that there are good people who have been part of the CFR (Admiral Chester Ward, for example), and doubtless there must be a few good folks who work for a company as large as Goldman; but Heidi’s longstanding connections with these two organizations do give me pause. Mind you, at this point, I am not condemning, just pointing out red flags.

*His infatuation with Israel

Ted Cruz recently spoke before the non-partisan group “In Defense of Christians” (IDC). In so doing, he began to laud, not the Christians who are suffering in the Middle East (which the organization is designed to help), but the modern state of Israel. When he did this, he was booed by the audience. Cruz became very angry and walked off the stage, saying, “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.”

But that was not the point. The IDC is all about helping persecuted Christians in the Middle East. And, yes, sometimes it is Israel that does the persecuting. Senator Cruz apparently has no cognizance of the fact that Christians are often persecuted by both Muslims and Jews. Either Mr. Cruz didn’t understand the purpose of the IDC and the plight of Christians in the Middle East, or, for the sake of a publicity stunt, he deliberately chose to throw the Jewish factor in the face of those folks knowing the sensitivity of their feelings of Christians sometimes being persecuted by Jews. No one but Ted Cruz knows his heart in the matter.

See the IDC website here:

In Defense Of Christians

As he is trying to establish himself as “the” Christian candidate, it is understandable that Cruz would try to ingratiate himself to conservative Christians. And, unfortunately, most evangelical Christians and pastors have the same basic approach to Israel that they have to civil government. The misinterpretation of Romans 13 causes them to say, “Obey government no matter what.” And the misinterpretation of Genesis 12 causes them to say, “Support Israel no matter what.” Both of these positions are not only unscriptural; they are very dangerous to America.

Instead of demanding that Middle Eastern Christians “stand with Israel,” Senator Cruz should have encouraged them to stand faithful to Christ, which is the message that those folks needed and were looking for. And given Senator Cruz’s outspoken Christian profession, this is the message they thought they would hear him give. After all, why else would such a group invite him to speak in the first place?

When the day comes that an American Christian senator (and maybe President) will lend credence to suffering Christians in the Middle East being more loyal to the political policies of a foreign country (in this case, the United States) than to them being faithful to their Savior, Jesus Christ, this will demonstrate that something is VERY, VERY wrong with the religion of American Christianity.

There you have it. These are my preliminary thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Senator Ted Cruz. I reserve the right to adjust these thoughts, one way or the other, as I learn more.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate 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.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

America’s Pastors Are Doing More To Enslave Our Country Than Any Foreign Power

Anthony Correia / Shutterstock.com  Anthony Correia / Shutterstock.com

Having to write this column is so very frustrating. I think I’m beginning to know how the Old Testament prophets of Israel felt. And how they basically felt was ALL ALONE. Their messages were not popular, to say the least. Many of them faced not only the ire and condemnation of the citizens of their country, but also the abuse and persecution of the established powers. And believe me, if some of the “good Christian” people who have written me the past three or four weeks had the legal power to do it, Chuck Baldwin would have already faced the same fate of the prophets of old. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

For one thing, when a man such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, or Micaiah delivered a message, they were drowned out by the hundreds and thousands of the king’s prophets. In one way or another, these men were on the king’s dole. They received the king’s “faith-based initiative” monies. They were invited to the king’s banquets. They received the king’s tax exemptions. They were afforded the king’s perks and privileges.

Therefore, it was not surprising that when a Jeremiah or Micaiah brought a message of judgment upon the land, he was drowned out in a cacophony of public rebuke by the king’s prophets. God’s prophets almost always stood ALONE.

And amazingly enough, the same scenario is taking place again in what is now the American Empire. (America was established and built as a constitutional republic, but now it does not remotely resemble its heritage. It has, without a shadow of a doubt, taken the form of an unaccountable, might-makes-right-hegemonic empire.) The vast majority of America’s prophets (preachers, pastors, evangelists, etc.) are directly or indirectly in the employ of the government (king). A host of them are receiving federal tax dollars directly from the federal government in the form of “faith based initiative” monies. Do you think for one minute that these pastors are going to say a peep in protest about the unlawful, unconstitutional conduct routinely taking place by the federal government? Not a chance in Hades!

As soon as someone goes on the public dole, for the most part, the government has successfully and thoroughly purchased their SILENCE.

In the second place, the vast majority of pastors and churches have voluntarily placed themselves directly under the supervision and authority of the federal government by accepting the 501c3 non-profit organization status from the Internal Revenue Service. And by so doing, the vast majority of pastors and churches will consciously do or say NOTHING that could jeopardize that non-profit tax status. And, once again, the federal government has successfully and thoroughly purchased their SILENCE.

Add to the above the perks and privileges that go along with being “Caesar’s friend.” I know a little bit about what I’m talking about here.

Back in “the day” when I was a young up and rising star among the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and Republican Party, I experienced my share of what it feels like to sit at the king’s table. I had personal audiences with untold congressmen and senators. I couldn’t count the number of governor’s mansions I was invited to. And I was twice invited to the White House: once to dine with Vice President George H.W. Bush, and once to meet President Ronald Reagan. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be a prophet who has been in the king’s inner chamber.

Of course, the other problem we have in our pulpits today is the demonic interpretation associated with Romans 13. Every Sunday all across America, the king’s prophets (puppets would be a better word) are emphatically telling their congregations to obey the civil government “no matter what.” Every Sunday, there are hundreds of pastors regurgitating this demonic doctrine to their people.

Without a doubt, America’s pastors are doing more to enslave our country than any foreign power.

The egregious misinterpretation of Romans 13 is a blight that is turning the most courageous champions of freedom-loving Christian men the world has ever known to some of the most sheepish, pathetic, indifferent, and milquetoast wimps in the universe. And it is the devilish misinterpretation of Romans 13 that demands Christians obey civil authorities “no matter what” that is responsible for it.

This Hitlerian teaching of Romans 13 is ubiquitous. It pours out like a rain that never stops. The vast majority of preachers, well-known and otherwise, disseminate this fallacy like clowns throwing out candy during a circus parade. The latest notable example is Franklin Graham.

On his Facebook page on March 12, Graham wrote the following:

Listen up–Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and everybody else. Most police shootings can be avoided. It comes down to respect for authority and obedience. If a police officer tells you to stop, you stop. If a police officer tells you to put your hands in the air, you put your hands in the air. If a police officer tells you to lay down face first with your hands behind your back, you lay down face first with your hands behind your back. It’s as simple as that. Even if you think the police officer is wrong–YOU OBEY! Parents, teach your children to respect and obey those in authority. Mr. President, this is the message our nation needs to hear, and they need to hear it from you. Some of the unnecessary shootings we have seen recently might have been avoided. The Bible says to submit to your leaders and those in authority ‘because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.’

All of that sounds well and good. I, too, was taught by my father to respect and obey authority. And if a policeman points his semi-automatic handgun in my face and tells me to get on the ground, I will get on the ground for fear of my life. BUT THAT DOESN’T EXCUSE A POLICEMAN WHO GIVES UNLAWFUL ORDERS OR WHO THREATENS THE LIVES OF CITIZENS UNNECESSARILY AND ILLEGALLY.

I can promise you that if I am on the ground at the point of a policeman’s gun, it is NOT respect that has laid me prone on the pavement; it is FEAR. Fear for my life.

As I have noted before in this column, my eighty-year-old mother-in-law was pulled over for a minor traffic violation here in the State of Montana; and when the officers exited their patrol car, both of them had their handguns pointed at her head. (She must have been pulled over for driving too slow.) This is the height of irresponsibility by these two police officers. And if this happened to my mother-in-law, imagine how many other senior citizens this is happening to? Talk about “public endangerment!” If one of these elderly souls fell over with a heart attack from the shock of such a thing, would the policemen accept any responsibility? Of course not. Talk about showing NO respect!

Mr. Graham’s comments may have been intended to teach respect for law enforcement officers, but that is NOT what his comments taught. What his comments taught is total submission to civil authorities NO MATTER WHAT. That’s the impression he gave.

Then, Mr. Graham attempted to use the Scripture to enforce his comments. Unfortunately, he obviously doesn’t know the Scripture well enough to use an appropriate one. Maybe he felt that Romans 13 was overused (it’s not overused; it’s misused), and wanted to reinforce his position with a similar Scripture–but he failed miserably.

The Scriptures Mr. Graham alluded to were Hebrews 13:7, 17. Here is what they say:

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (Vs. 7)

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Vs. 17)

Clearly, these verses have NOTHING to do with obedience to civil government. Rather, the focus is church members being submissive to their spiritual leaders (pastors, overseers, etc.) in the church. When Paul said “they watch for your souls,” he was not talking about policemen. Ladies and gentlemen, law enforcement officers are NOT watching for your souls. Mostly, they are watching out for their own safety (they wear a gun for their safety, not yours), for their careers, and for a reason to make an arrest. That’s what policemen are mainly looking out for.

If he is a God-called pastor, however, he is watching out for the souls of his flock. At least, he should be. That brings up the problem that so many pastors are NOT looking after men’s souls; they are looking out for their building plans, size of staff, amount of offerings, size of congregation, and how many programs the church offers. That’s hardly looking out for men’s souls.

But I would love to hear Franklin Graham say to church members (since that was the focus of the verses he alluded to in his Facebook post), that no matter what the pastor tells them to do, “YOU OBEY!”

Really? Church members should obey their pastors NO MATTER WHAT? Well, if Hebrews 13 was interpreted the same way that Romans 13 is interpreted, that is EXACTLY what Mr. Graham and the preachers of America would be promoting. I would love to see this interpretation of Hebrews 13 taught in ANY church this Sunday.

In Ephesians 6, Paul addresses authority in the home and in the work place. Husbands and fathers are given authority in the home, while employers are given authority in the workplace. But in neither instance is the father or employer (“master”) given unlimited authority. NOT AT ALL. Fathers and employers are given jurisdictional authority to exercise their authority in such a way that does not abuse the Natural rights given to man by God.

Would Franklin Graham, or any other preacher in America, get up next Sunday and tell their flock that fathers and husbands should be obeyed NO MATTER WHAT? Would they teach that husbands and fathers can be abusive to their families? Must employees submit to their bosses NO MATTER WHAT? Must employees submit to being battered and intimidated? Must they allow themselves to be used for illegal or immoral purposes? Of course not. There is not a pastor in America who would dare to even suggest such a thing. And rightly so.

But when it comes to civil authority, when it comes to Romans 13, all bets are off. Christians must submit to civil government NO MATTER WHAT. Christians must submit to police officers NO MATTER WHAT. So why is it that only civil government has God-ordained tyrannical power? God puts family government in a superior position to civil government; yet to the average pastor and Christian today, officials within civil government have unlimited power, while a husband and father’s authority in the home is (rightly) understood to be limited, jurisdictional, and under the greater authority of God.

Mr. Graham is an outspoken critic of Islam. I wonder if he would spew forth the above “YOU OBEY!” message if Sharia Law was the law of the land. Had he lived in Germany at the rise of the Third Reich, would he have spewed forth the same message? Or maybe in Stalin’s Russia? And I suppose he would preach the “YOU OBEY!” message to those suffering saints in Red China who are languishing in the gulags for preaching the Gospel or for operating non-state-licensed churches contrary to China’s law enforcers.

Again, this constant and perpetual message of total submission to civil government “no matter what” that is pouring forth from our nation’s pulpits is doing more to enslave America than anything any foreign enemy could ever hope to do.

In order for us to respect law enforcers, they must act respectfully, which means THEY must respect both the law they represent and the citizens for whom they work. It takes more than a badge and a gun to earn respect.

Yes, honest, God-fearing folks respect the POSITION held by law enforcement officers; but there can be no respect for those individuals who use the position of law enforcer to misuse and abuse the law!

The examples of police abuse and the “trigger-happy-cops” syndrome are now a regular occurrence in our country . Every day in America, harmless, innocent citizens of all ages and races are subjected to police thuggery.  It may not be true, but it seems that more and more police officers have a “shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later” police-state mentality. And it is being demonstrated on the streets of America EVERY DAY.

I urge readers to take a few minutes to peruse through my “Emerging Police State” page on my website. You will read of only a small fraction of the accounts of police abuse taking place all the time. Here are a few of the headlines from just the past few months:

Wisconsin Cop Guns Down Unarmed Teenager

Cop Brutally Attacks 78-Year-Old For Delivering Cupcakes To Her Grandchildren

Video Shows Rough Treatment Of Tamir Rice’s 14-Year-Old Sister As Her Younger Brother Lay Dying

Cop Suspended After He Was Caught On Camera Brutally Slapping Driver Who Asked Why He Needed To Search His Car

Video: Cop Goes Nuts When Told “God Bless You”

Police Kill Georgia Grandfather During No-Knock Raid On Wrong Home

“I’ll Put A Round In You’re A** So Quick”: Florida Police Chief Defends Cop Who Threatened To Shoot Young Black Man Because He Filmed His Partner Throwing Him On The Ground

U.S. Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11

Cops Pull Gun On Fifth Graders Building Tree Fort

Gun Grabbing Cop Goes Ballistic: “I’m The Master!”

See my compilation of stories revealing America’s Emerging Police State here:

Emerging Police State

Believe me, folks; the stories I have compiled are only the tip of the iceberg. It is absolutely no hyperbole to say that we are witnessing the creation of a Police State right in front of our very eyes. And one of the reasons for it is the teaching and preaching of America’s pulpits to submit to civil government “no matter what,” per the misinterpretation of Romans 13.

This is such a major problem that my constitutional attorney son and I co-authored a blockbuster book entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” The book goes through the entire Bible and shows unequivocally that nowhere does our Creator demand that His people submit to unlawful, oppressive authority. And nowhere in the Bible is civil government granted unconditional authority over man.

Order the book here:

Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission

Furthermore, I delivered four complete messages on Romans 13 that have been put on one DVD. The DVD is entitled, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” If you prefer to watch the video messages, you can order it here:

The True Meaning of Romans 13 DVD

The Bible is replete with examples of God’s people who deliberately DISOBEYED civil government and received God’s supreme approbation. I wonder if Franklin Graham and America’s pastors are still teaching the stories of David and Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and practically every Old Testament prophet, including John the Baptist. I wonder if they are still retelling the stories (and explaining the significance of them for us today) of Simon Peter and the other apostles, including Paul, who spent about as much time in jail as out of jail for their defiance of civil authorities. And I further wonder if they have ever bothered to teach the life of Christ, which shows that He CONSTANTLY defied the authority of the Pharisees, who were acting as governing agents of the Roman Empire over Jerusalem and Judea.

By the way, I have a three-message DVD entitled, “Christ And The Pharisees.” Dear reader: ask yourself why you never hear your pastor talk about Christ and the Pharisees? One cannot fully understand the life of Christ and the Gospel narratives of the Bible without understanding the continual contest between Christ and the Pharisees. Watch my DVD; and the next time you hear a naïve Christian friend or pastor say, “Jesus never challenged civil authority, so neither should we,” you will know how to educate your ignorant friend on the truth of Christ’s constant defiance of civil authority.

Order “Christ And The Pharisees” DVD here:

Christ And The Pharisees DVD

What America really needs to be hearing from our preachers today, including from Mr. Graham, is the whole counsel of God related to the fact that EVERYONE, including those in law enforcement, the U.S. military, those in Congress, and even the President of the United States, is obligated to obey the Natural and moral laws of God and the Constitution of The United States, that NO ONE is above the law–not even policemen or soldiers.

Why don’t our preachers exegete the words of John the Baptist to the law enforcers of his day? Like most totalitarian regimes, the law enforcers of John’s day were military soldiers. This is the way it is in most every totalitarian regime.

John plainly told the soldiers to “do violence to no man.” What? That’s what soldiers do. They kill people and blow up things. They are trained killers. What did John mean, “Do no violence?” He meant soldiers and law enforcers must never commit violence unjustly or unlawfully. God’s moral laws regarding killing apply to soldiers and policemen as much as they do to the everyday citizen on the street.

John also told them, “neither accuse any falsely.” Many soldiers and policemen have used the power of the gun and badge to illegally take people’s property or to advance their own careers by arresting people who should never have been arrested. I can give you a true personal story about this. In fact, I included that story in my message last Sunday that I wish all you would watch. The message is entitled, “When Worship Means Nothing.” And it has a lot to do with what I’m addressing in this column. Watch or order the message here:

When Worship Means Nothing

John also told the soldiers to be content with their wages. Why would he say this? Because many unscrupulous soldiers and policemen will use their position and power to exact or extort money and position from and by the innocent and defenseless. In fact, in many of today’s police departments, promotions are based on the numbers of arrests. Arrest quotas are even often required of officers. Advancement is often determined by the number of arrests an officer makes. Thus, the officer is turned into a state revenuer; he is working for career advancement on the backs of (often) innocent people. Truly, if we released all of the people from prison who genuinely do not belong there, we would end the prison overcrowding problem instantly.

How many police officers carry untraceable handguns, called “throw down” weapons? These guns are carried by officers for the purpose of planting them on someone whom the officer may have just shot and killed but who was unarmed. So, to cover and justify the killing, a “throw down” weapon is placed near the victim so the officer can claim self-defense. How often does this take place? Far more than most of us want to admit. And hardly ever will a policeman “rat” on his partner. So, the crime is never accounted for. And, again, there is no telling how often this goes on.

John the Baptist was addressing all of these sorts of things in Luke 3:14. When is the last time you heard your pastor (or Franklin Graham, for that matter) deliver these very relevant principles from Luke 3:14 to the people of America? I would bet NEVER.

In the United States–a once-free republic–soldiers were absolutely forbidden to engage in domestic law enforcement. No more. Today, our local and State police more and more have the function and form of military units. They wear military garb; they use military weapons; they have military vehicles, tanks, helicopters, etc.; and they employ military tactics. Most of our police and sheriff’s SWAT teams are trained by U.S. Special Forces military units, i.e. Green Berets, SEALS, Rangers, etc.

Of course, we respect the POSITION of peace officer. But it is also incumbent upon the peace officer to respect the citizens for whom he works and the Constitution that he is sworn to uphold. Most people normally behave respectfully when they are treated respectfully. Of course, there are exceptions. But even then, the onus is on the one who volunteered to put on a badge and place him or herself in between the law-abiding and the lawless.

No, Mr. Graham, the Bible does NOT command us to obey everything civil government may tell us to do. Our country was founded on the principle of lawful resistance to unlawful authority. When British troops demanded of our forebears, “YOU OBEY!”, our brave Christian pastors and laymen responded with the “shot heard ’round the world.”

Of course, I’m going to lie face down on the ground when a cop is pointing a gun at me. But that, by itself, doesn’t make it right. And if it did happen to me (and he didn’t kill me in the process), you can bet I would use every available legal recourse to make sure that that officer never put on a badge again.

But the problem is, that cop probably goes to church somewhere where he has NEVER heard a message from God’s Word regarding his responsibility, under God, to conduct himself in a manner that God demands of HIM. All he has heard is what he heard Franklin Graham say to us citizens: “YOU OBEY!” And his police training is coming straight out of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hellbent on turning the United States into a Police State. So, the good officer has heard absolutely nothing about his duty before God to not abuse the power of his position, to respect the constitutional rights of our citizens, and to submit to the moral and Natural laws of God relative to his position as a law enforcer.

Again, this is so very frustrating!

P.S. Once again, I am in touch with a group of patriot Christians near BRADENTON/SARASOTA, FLORIDA, who very much desire to start a new non-501c3 fellowship. In fact, I am scheduled to conduct a Liberty Church Project conference for these folks on April 29-30 at the Hilton Garden Inn SARASOTA/BRADENTON Airport hotel. If you live nearby, I would love to see you at this conference. Furthermore, if you live in or near BRADENTON/SARASOTA, FLORIDA, and would like to join this group, here is an email that you can use to connect with them.

The email address is: libertyfellowshipflorida@gmail.com

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate 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.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom