Donald Trump Is Right About John McCain

Maverick Republican Donald Trump has been under intense pressure from the GOP establishment for his off-the-cuff remark about Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). In a televised interview, Trump said: “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Predictably, establishment Republicans immediately called Trump just about every dirty name in the book. Lindsey Graham called him a “jackass.” Rick Perry said the comment made him “unfit” to be President. Mitt Romney said Trump “shot himself down.” (Not hardly! Trump is the clear front runner of all the GOP presidential candidates in most polls.) But, clearly, the Republican establishment is frustrated with Trump’s popularity–and for good reason.

Donald Trump is scorching the GOP for its support of illegal immigration, and he is scorching it for its support of incessant foreign wars. Trump said: “We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers. And we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.” Amen!

See the report here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm

And he is scorching them BIG TIME by calling into question the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer. Specifically, he has dared to tell the truth about the miserable record of John McCain’s treatment of America’s veterans.

See this report:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/john-mccain-vets-worst-enemy-6331635

In refusing to apologize for his remarks about Senator McCain, Trump rightly said: “The reality is that John McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing amnesty. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than Arizona’s.”

See the report here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/trump-fights-back-i-dont-need-to-be-lectured-i-said-nothing-wrong.html

While most everyone has criticized the second part of Trump’s statement (“I like people who weren’t captured”), hardly anyone has dared to broach the first part of the statement: “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured.” That statement is an absolute fact.

John McCain rose to become one of America’s most powerful senators and became the Republican Party’s nominee for President in 2008 mostly on his Prisoner of War (POW) status. Absent his POW history, McCain would no doubt have lived his entire life in relative obscurity. It usually takes more than simply being a veteran or being the son of a Navy admiral or even being a POW to make one obtain famous hero status. How many other POWs do you know who have achieved McCain’s political power and influence?

Alabama’s Jeremiah Denton was a POW who truly endured intense torture at the hands of the enemy and who became one of our finest U.S. senators. And there was never the first hint of dishonorable conduct or scandal or accusations that Denton used his war record for personal profit. I had the privilege of meeting Senator Denton a couple of times, and the thing that struck me most about the man was his deep and genuine humility. The same cannot be said of John McCain.

John McCain’s POW record has been shrouded in controversy from the very beginning. Many independent journalists and military veterans have accused McCain of being America’s version of “Tokyo Rose.” They offer convincing evidence (or at least credible postulations) that McCain was NEVER tortured, that he received special treatment by his captors, and that he actually willingly participated in anti-America propaganda, in much the same way that Tokyo Rose did in the Pacific during World War II.

One Vietnam veteran who was publicly critical of John McCain was my friend Jack McLamb. McLamb served nine years in secret operations in Cambodia and other nations before going on to become one of the most highly decorated police officers in Phoenix, Arizona, history, winning Police Officer of the Year twice before taking a role as a hostage negotiator for the FBI.

McLamb said of McCain: “I know a lot of Vietnam veterans and a few POW’s and all the POW’s that I’ve talked to over the years say that John McCain is a lying skunk.

“He never was tortured–they were there in the camp with him and then when he came in….he immediately started spilling his guts about everything because he didn’t want to get tortured,” said McLamb, contradicting the official story that McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth.

“The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.”

McLamb also said: “The POW’s said that McCain made 32 propaganda videos for the communist North Vietnamese in which he denounced America for what they were doing in Vietnam.

“They have these sealed now, our government has these sealed, we can’t get to it, they have it classified. In truth the POW’s hate John McCain.”

See the report here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm

There are many similar reports about John McCain. I suspect that Donald Trump is familiar with these reports. Here are a few of them:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/no_author/sen-tokyo-rose-r-az/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/06/13/mcnasty/

http://www.unz.com/article/mccain-and-the-pow-cover-up/

Reports note that former American POWs such as Col. Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, who were held in the same communist prison as McCain, have gone on record saying that they are very skeptical about McCain’s claims of torture.

See this report:

https://hope2012.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/songbird-mccain-the-evidence-in-his-own-words-his-fellow-veterans-and-his-captors/

Another former POW, Philip Butler, a man who was also imprisoned with McCain, is more sympathetic to the man, saying that he had probably been tortured early on in his captivity and made no reference to McCain’s alleged anti-America propaganda charges–but was emphatic that McCain was unqualified to be President. Butler firmly said that he would NOT vote for McCain because McCain was a hot-tempered man who had become a Bush-like warmonger and who had used his POW status for personal and political gain. Remember, this is from a fellow POW who actually likes McCain.

See the report here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/95825/i_spent_years_as_a_pow_with_john_mccain%2C_and_his_finger_should_not_be_near_the_red_button

Regardless of McCain’s real war record (the U.S. government has sealed the record, so we will likely never know the truth about the matter), it is a fact that, as one of the most powerful senators in Washington, D.C., John McCain has done little to assist America’s veterans. In fact, McCain is commonly regarded as being one of the strongest opponents to the investigation and rescue of POWs left behind in Indochina following the Vietnam War.

While a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1993), McCain referred to POW/MIA family members and activists as “whiners,” “vultures,” and “the lunatic fringe.” Although the committee concluded that there were indeed American POWs left behind in Indochina, McCain voted to normalize relations with Vietnam without any accountability for America’s missing servicemen. In so doing, McCain ignored a letter written by fellow POW Captain Eugene “Red” McDaniel and co-signed by 50 former POWs which asked him to not support normalized relations with Vietnam until the POW issue had been resolved.

In 1996, McCain opposed the Missing Service Personnel Act (MSPA) as being “unnecessary” and “burdensome.” He also helped to amend the MSPA to remove criminal liability, which POW/MIA families knew was a serious blow to obtaining meaningful accountability on behalf of their loved ones still languishing in Southeast Asia.

See the report here:

http://www.renewamerica.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7839

And this report:

http://www.vvof.org/mccain_hides.htm

John McCain has spent most of his senatorial career promoting an open border with Mexico, a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and incessant foreign wars; facilitating the miserable performance of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA); and covering up evidence of Americans left behind in Indochina. No wonder so many people have referred to McCain as “The Manchurian Candidate.”

Read this report:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/11/john-mccain-always-and-forever.html

By telling the truth about John McCain, Donald Trump has hit the rawest of nerves within the Washington establishment (and New World Order globalist elite). Without a doubt, John McCain is one of the globalist elite’s political darlings. A favored son of globalist puppet-masters such as Henry Kissinger, John McCain has been a water boy for the New World Order from the time he entered politics. Guilty of corruption as one of the infamous “Keating Five,” John McCain was given a mere “slap-on-the-wrist” and allowed to continue his pernicious ways.

See the report here:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keating_five/index.html

And McCain’s “war hero” status has made him virtually untouchable–until now.

My mind is far from made up in regards to supporting Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. But, so far, Donald Trump has been willing to courageously confront the Washington establishment in an in-your-face, no-holds-barred manner that we have not seen in a long, long time. And if Trump accomplishes nothing else in his presidential bid except exposing establishment sycophants like John McCain, I, for one, am excited that he has entered the race.

 

P.S. This is the final announcement regarding the availability of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. This is a giant compilation of over 50 of America’s greatest documents in one volume. THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS cannot be found in stores or anywhere else. And this is a limited printing, so our supply will not last long.

Notable constitutionalists such as Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and former congressman Ron Paul have their copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS.

Most schools today, including most private and Christian schools, do NOT require the reading of these great historical documents. Without the written record of our history, how are we going to pass down our heritage to our children and grandchildren? And with the way things are going, how much longer will it be before these documents are completely forgotten, or even banned?

Again, this is the final announcement; so order your copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now.

To order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

The Freedom Documents

And to read a more detailed description of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

A Great Way To Celebrate Independence Day

© 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 – Equipping You With The Truth

An Open Letter To My Fellow Pastors And Christians

I was born and raised in a Christian home. I accepted Christ as my Savior at the age of five. I surrendered to the Gospel ministry at the age of eighteen. I attended or have diplomas and degrees from four Bible colleges. I started pastoring when I was twenty-three years of age. And I just observed my fortieth year of continuous pastoral ministry. As Paul said to his son in the faith, Timothy, so I can say: “And that from a child [I have] known the holy scriptures.” (II Tim. 3:15)

Obviously, I am no stranger to the work of God. I have been in church all of my life. Though my dad was not a full-time minister (even though he was ordained), his best friends were pastors. As a result, I have been around pastors and Christian workers all of my life. So, I am not speaking as an outsider. I know church work from the inside out. I’ve seen it; I’ve been taught it; and I’ve experienced it. The good, the bad, and the ugly: I’ve seen it all.

We pastors and Christians are never going to agree on every nuance of scriptural interpretation or method of ministry. But the vast majority of us will agree that Christ alone is our Sovereign, and the Bible is the rule for our faith and practice.

SO, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?

Caesar has demanded that we recognize the legal “right” of homosexuals and lesbians to “marry.” It will not be long before each and every one of us pastors and ministers will, first, be ASKED to “marry” same-sex couples, and, then, be REQUIRED to “marry” same-sex couples.

WHAT WILL WE DO?

Some pastors are waiting to hear from their denominational superiors for instructions. Some are, no doubt, trying to keep quiet about the subject and hope they can somehow avoid dealing with it. Some are now counseling with attorneys for guidance. But, in truth, our guidance and instruction do not come from denominational officers or lawyers; and it is a cold, hard fact that there is NO avoiding the issue. Sooner or later (probably sooner), each of us will have to make a conscientious decision that is based solely on our moral and scriptural convictions.

AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO?

For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of religion and conscience became a matter of state licensure in 1954 when churches were included in the Internal Revenue Code, section 501c3, as mere non-profit organizations. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom to pray and read the Bible was removed from our public schools in 1962 and ’63. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of God-ordained self-defense became a state-sanctioned license and privilege in 1968. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the God-ordained right to life of unborn babies was expunged in 1973. For the most part, our pulpits have been silent as our Natural rights of privacy and local autonomy began being stripped from us in 2001. And, now, the most important institution in human history, Holy Matrimony, has been “redefined” by Caesar’s court.

Will we pastors remain silent? Will we sheepishly submit to this egregious and tyrannical assault against the most fundamental institution created by God? Will we become willing accomplices to the formalization of egregiously unnatural perversion?

WHAT WILL WE DO?

Can we not see that what is at stake is the preservation of religious liberty and Christian conscience in our land? Radical secularists (and even some anti-Christian religionists) desire to expunge every semblance of Christian thought and ideology from our nation. The purge has already begun.

All over America, lawsuits against pastors who refuse to marry same-sex couples have already been filed. The same is true for Christians in various service industries that refuse to cater to homosexual “marriages.” Militant homosexuals have brought a $70 million lawsuit against the two largest publishers of the Bible (Zondervan and Tyndale), demanding that the Scriptures condemning sodomy be eviscerated.

It will not be long, and cultural Marxists will see to it that the homosexual lifestyle will be promoted in every conceivable public venue. Movies, television (even children’s programs), books, music, magazines, etc., will openly promote the sodomite lifestyle. Common Core curriculum will certainly advocate for homosexual conduct in America’s public schools. Homosexuals will demand the right to flaunt their romantic proclivities in public. Restaurants, concert houses, theaters, meeting places, even churches will be sued if they do not allow homosexuals to openly display their perversity. Again, this is already beginning.

And for pastors and churches specifically, the big intimidation factor is the IRS tax-exempt status. Already, some of the largest and most notable newspapers, periodicals, and newscasts are calling for the removal of tax-exempt churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples. Some are even calling for the removal of tax-exempt status of ALL churches.

If the “great recession” of 2008 and ’09 was the natural “correction” of a manipulated economic “bubble,” I submit that the Hodges decision is the natural (or maybe divine) correction of a manipulated spiritual bubble. For over a half-century, churches have been intoxicated with “success.” The Joel Osteen-brand of Christianity has obfuscated the true purpose of the church. Pleasing Caesar and maintaining tax-exempt status (at all costs) have supplanted pleasing God and maintaining Biblical status. The result is a church that is “increased with goods,” but that is spiritually “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17)

In reality, the Hodges Supreme Court decision was inevitable. It was the result of the spiritually polygamous marriage between the church and state in 1954. It was the result of a church that, like the Jewish Pharisees of old, said, “We have no king but Caesar,” while pretending to be married to Christ.

Well, now God has forced His pastors and churches to take a stand. There is no beating around the bush anymore. There is no avoiding the issue. Pastors and churches will either submit to Christ, or they will submit to Caesar. There is no middle ground. There is no more fence-straddling.

Again, the root cause of all of this is the church’s acceptance of state licensure, and, therefore, state authority. Churches committed spiritual adultery when they allowed themselves to take the 501c3 wedding band. By doing so, they became “creatures of the state” and ceased to be the “bride” of Christ. And, remember, our God is a jealous God. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)

Since the state has decided to repudiate the Natural authority of marriage as given by our Creator, it behooves us, as Christian ministers, to repudiate state authority over marriage. That means we should immediately cease and desist from officiating over any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, that includes a license from the state. That is exactly what I will do.

In terms of the history of the Church, as well as Western Civilization, state-licensure of marriages is very recent. For over 1,800 years, almost no marriages (if any) required state-licensure. A certificate of marriage or declaration of marriage or church approbation–or other such recognition–was all that was needed. I don’t know about all of the 50 states, of course; but in my home State of Montana, marriages do NOT require a State license. And that’s exactly the way it should be.

WHAT ABOUT IT, PREACHER? WHAT WILL YOU DO?

Is a state-created tax-exempt license more important than fidelity to Christ and the Scriptures? Let me speak plainly: so what if we lose our tax-exempt status?

I hear my brethren exclaim, “But, Brother Chuck, we will lose tithing members. If they cannot claim their contributions on their tax forms, they will stop giving to the church.” My response is: SO BE IT.

Our churches are filled with careless, insincere, half-hearted Christians. God promised to separate the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff; I believe He is doing just that in the United States right now. America’s churches have been living in a manipulated spiritual “bubble.” The bubble is bursting. It’s long overdue.

Christians in oppressed countries around the world are not worrying about some kind of tax-exempt status. They are not creatures of the state. Many of them are not even recognized as being legal in their states. Many of them are “unofficial,” “unregistered,” “unlawful,” etc. But they are true to Christ and His Word–and their numbers are flourishing.

In just a few years, there will be more Christians in Communist China than in so-called “Christian” America–a first since America came into existence. And there is no tax-exempt status afforded them. At the same time here in America, Christianity is in steep decline. What’s the difference? In China, churches do not seek, nor will they accept, state recognition and endorsement, while here in America, churches enthusiastically embrace state recognition and endorsement (licensure).

It’s time we find out who is real and who isn’t.

And a question for those church members out there: What are you going to do if your pastor agrees to marry same-sex couples? If your pastor will not take a stand on this, he won’t take a stand on ANYTHING. And, if he hasn’t said anything from the pulpit already, why are you still there?

Are you not willing to give your tithes and offerings to a church even if those financial gifts are NOT tax deductible? If not, what is your real motivation for giving to begin with? Are you not willing to sit under the preaching of a courageous man of God who is the servant of God and not the servant of men–even men in government? If not, why are you even attending church?

Christians have been flocking to these “feel-good” churches for decades. They continued to support spineless pastors who refused to take a stand for the God-ordained duty of self-defense; who refused to take a stand against the killing of unborn babies; who refused to speak out for religious liberty; and who are currently refusing to take a stand against an Orwellian Police State being created in front of our very eyes. Will they now continue to stay inside those churches whose pastors refuse to take a stand for God-ordained marriage?

I submit that either the Church in America repents and does the “first works,” or it will quickly lose its “candlestick.” Truly, “the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” (I Peter 4:17)

AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?

© 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 – Equipping You With The Truth

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said: “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln; and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens, who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually, there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech: “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south; many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution; and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself, is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man allegedly killed nine black people and ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed: “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional; and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

© 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 – Equipping You With The Truth

Thanks To The American Church, SCOTUS Has Legalized ‘Gay Marriage’

By now, everyone on the planet knows that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered a decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled that states may not prohibit homosexual couples from getting “married.” The reasoning of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” clause.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said: “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”

Obviously, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right of homosexuals to “marry.” But there is something in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right to keep and bear arms. Using the reasoning and conclusion of the Court’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, states have absolutely no authority to deny recognition of concealed carry permits that have been issued in other states. In other words, if the 14th Amendment protects an unspecified right (same-sex “marriage”), it certainly protects a specified right (the right to keep and bear arms). And since some states recognize the right of citizens to openly carry firearms, this right should also be determined to be protected by the 14th Amendment. If states must recognize driver’s licenses (and now same-sex “marriage” licenses) issued in other states, it is now clear that they must also be required to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued in other states.

See this report:

SCOTUS Same-sex Marriage Decision May Have Just Legalized The Concealed Carry Of Loaded Firearms Across All 50 States, Nullifying Gun Laws Everywhere  

It should be obvious to any objective person that by providing 14th Amendment protection to homosexual “marriage,” SCOTUS has banned most gun control laws throughout the country. However, I seriously doubt that the five justices passing the same-sex “marriage” decision had gun control in mind. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t stop gun rights activists from taking advantage of the SCOTUS decision.

Many libertarian jurists are lauding the SCOTUS same-sex decision as a victory for the right of individuals to enter into contracts with one another. But marriage is more than a “contract.” It is an institution–an institution created by GOD. No human authority can redefine what our Creator has already defined in both revealed and Natural Law. Forevermore, true marriage can only be between a man and a woman–a SCOTUS decision notwithstanding.

Senator Rand Paul wisely noted: “While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

“The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

“Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

“Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

“It seems some rights are more equal than others.

“Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

“This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

“Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: ‘In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.’

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

“Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

See the report here:

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Note that Dr. Paul correctly recognized that the SCOTUS attempted to render a “redefinition” of marriage. That it did.

Since the beginning of human history (not to mention Western Civilization), marriage has been recognized as being between a man and a woman. Again, marriage is much more than a civil contract.

As I have noted several times, the right of civil contracts includes the right of homosexuals to enter into civil unions. But marriage is NOT a civil union. Nor is it merely a civil contract. In fact, real marriage is NOT a civil matter at all. It is a spiritual matter. Civil governments can recognize or not recognize all they want; it doesn’t change the definition of marriage one iota. Civil governments can no more redefine marriage than they can redefine worship or prayer. Marriage is a divine institution. Therefore, it is completely outside the scope and jurisdiction of SCOTUS or any other civil authority.

The problem is that many years ago, the Church decided to allow civil government licensing authority over marriage. When they did this, they absconded divine authority over marriage and reduced it into nothing more than just another government-sanctioned civil contract. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

The problem is not SCOTUS; the problem is the CHURCH.

Rand Paul is right: “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

So far, the only State to have the correct response to the SCOTUS decision is the State of Alabama, led by my friend Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. The State of Alabama is encouraging county courthouses to not issue ANY marriage licenses. And this is exactly what many Alabama counties are doing. This strategy should be replicated by all fifty states and the counties within those states.

Furthermore, pastors across the country should stop performing ALL marriages that are licensed by the State. In other words, the Church should do what it did for some 1,800+ years of Church history: keep the State out of the marriage business.

But all of that doesn’t change the intention of the Court decision and the agenda of the radical secularists who are the impetus behind the decision and their attempt to expunge all semblances of Christianity (and morality) from America’s public life.

In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy attempted to throw people of faith a bone by stating: “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

However, notice that Kennedy said that religious people may “advocate” for traditional marriage, but he said nothing about non-compliance. What will happen to those pastors and churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples? If you think for one minute that radical homosexuals are going to be content with a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t have enforcement power, you are very mistaken.

Already, allies of the militant homosexual agenda are promoting public censorship and the loss of tax exempt status for those churches that refuse to submit to the Supreme Court decision.

My friend Cal Thomas got it right: “Given their political clout and antipathy to Christian doctrines, some gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them. As with legal challenges to the owners of bakeries that have been in the news for refusing to bake a cake for same-sex weddings, activists who demand total conformity to their agenda will seek to put out of business and silence anyone who believes differently.”

See Cal’s column here:

You’ve Been Warned, America, Gay Marriage Is Just The Beginning

Cal is exactly right. The purge has already begun.

“CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it wasn’t legal ‘to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people’ while recounting Scalia’s prior dissent in Lawrence v. Texas on Friday’s ‘CNN Newsroom.’”

See the report here:

CNN’s Toobin: Not ‘Legal’ For Scalia To Talk About Gay People Like He Used To

Again, this is from CNN’s SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST. “Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.” Anti-Christian purgers are already advocating the cancellation of the right of free speech in the wake of the SCOTUS decision.

Look at this: “A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA has announced henceforth it intends to censor certain views about marriage deemed no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.

“John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. Micek wrote:

“‘As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.’ In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, ‘This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.’”

Here is the report:

Pennsylvania Newspaper Censors All Dissent On Same-sex Marriage

You can take this to the bank: there will be hundreds of local and State laws reflecting the SCOTUS decision and hundreds of lawsuits forthcoming against people who seek to live by their religious convictions by not directly participating in homosexual “marriages.” And that means there will be hundreds of court decisions ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of arrest warrants, civil fines, prison sentences, etc. Anyone who doesn’t see this coming is blind.

Then there is this column written by Mark Oppenheimer, who writes for America’s flagship newspaper, The New York Times, calling for the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches on the heels of the SCOTUS gay “marriage” decision.

See Mark’s column here:

Now’s The Time To End Tax Exemptions For Religious Institutions

You can mark it down: his will not be the last such call.

So, this begs the question, what will all of these Romans 13 “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” preachers do now? When they are told by the IRS and local civil authorities to “marry” homosexuals or lose their tax exemption–or maybe even go to jail–what will they do?

All of this goes back to what I’ve been saying for years: the Church is to blame for this mess. Pastors are to blame for this mess.

For decades, pastors and churches allowed the state to supplant the authority of Christ over them. They volunteered to become creatures of the state by submitting to the IRS 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt status. By doing so, they forfeited their independence and autonomy (not to mention their spiritual identity and authority) and became nothing more than a state-created non-profit organization. Again, now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Actually, I think it’s time for pastors and churches to decide once and for all to whom they belong and what they are. And if that means losing their precious tax-exempt status, SO BE IT.

For the sake of tax exemption, pastors and churches have stayed mostly silent on virtually every evil contrivance of civil government under the sun. Most of them said nothing when SCOTUS expunged prayer and Bible reading from our schools; most of them said nothing when the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which is almost copied word for word from Adolf Hitler’s gun control act) was passed; most of them said nothing when SCOTUS legalized the murder of unborn babies; most of them said nothing with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, indefinite detention of American citizens under NDAA, and just recently, when the Republican Congress collaborated with Barack Obama to cast America’s national sovereignty upon the altar of international “free trade” deals. For the sake of tax exemption, the vast, vast majority of today’s pastors and churches are totally silent about almost EVERYTHING.

So, what will America’s pastors and churches do now? What will they do when they must choose between “marrying” same-sex couples and losing tax exemption? If their track record is any indicator, we know what most of them will do: THEY WILL SUBMIT TO CAESAR.

Plus, the SCOTUS decision opens the door for a host of other possibilities. If every consenting adult has an absolute right to enter into civil contracts, how can a State prohibit polygamy? In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” made the future legalization of polygamy inevitable. Where does it end?

Popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh agrees with Justice Roberts. Read Rush’s analysis here:

Rush Limbaugh: Here’s What’s Next For Marriages

And if a State must recognize polygamous “marriages,” what’s next? Where will it end?

And there is one more thing that almost no one is willing to talk about: what is at stake here is the national acceptance of sexual perversion. The SCOTUS decision lends national approbation to an act that our Creator has condemned with the strongest language. (See Romans chapter one.) It has lent national approbation to an act that Western Civilization has always (rightly) regarded as deviant.

Understand this: once any society universally embraces and promotes the sodomite lifestyle, there is no going back. One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it. It is both a divine and Natural Law. There is a huge difference between recognizing the civil rights of individuals to live immorally (that is a personal matter between the individual and God) and forcing society as a whole to grant societal acceptance and recognition to the immoral act. To quote Rand Paul again: “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.” Yet, that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done.

But, once again, the fault is the Church. The Church has refused to be the moral leader of the country. Things like homosexuality are too “controversial” for most pulpits. It is a forbidden subject. And too many churches that have been willing to address the issue have done so with such a lack of love and compassion as to do more harm than good. To not speak the truth is bad; to not speak the truth in love is worse.

And dare I say that many of our Christian churches, schools, colleges, and universities have become breeding grounds for homosexual behavior. The absence of male leadership is epidemic in the Church–and in the home, for that matter. And by leadership, I do not mean dictatorship. But true, godly, strong, kind, loving male leadership has eroded significantly from twentieth, and now twenty-first, century churches.

The Church is the moral rudder of a nation. The SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” is the result of the Church abandoning its moral leadership. The Church surrendered its spiritual and moral authority to the state. Why should it now be surprised when the state chooses to not recognize a moral authority that the Church, itself, refuses to recognize?

P.S. In honor of Independence Day, we are again offering THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. This is a giant compilation of over 50 of America’s greatest documents in one volume. THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS cannot be found in stores or anywhere else. And this is a limited printing, so our supply will not last long.

Speaking of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he has a copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, as does former congressman Ron Paul.

So, don’t just shoot off fireworks; give your children and loved ones the documents that birthed the greatest free nation on earth, and let them read the stirring words of our forebears for themselves. Unfortunately, most schools–even private and Christian schools–do not require the reading of these wonderful documents. How much longer before these documents are completely forgotten, or even banned?

Again, this is a limited printing; so order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now.

To order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

The Freedom Documents

And to read a more detailed description of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

A Great Way To Celebrate Independence Day

© 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 – Equipping You With The Truth

Democrats And GOP Rebels Save The Day On Obamatrade

After the Republican-controlled Senate foolishly passed the so-called “Obamatrade” bill, the House leadership (John Boehner, Steve Scalise, Paul Ryan, et al.) worked their tails off to pass the bill. But a majority of Democrats and liberty-minded Republicans (small in number) rallied in opposition to the bill and voted it down. HOORAY! In this case, it was mostly Democrats who saved the day!

I have been saying for years that people who think the Republican establishment is a friend to liberty are extremely naïve. On issues regarding so-called “free trade” (it’s NOT free trade; it’s globalism masquerading as free trade), the Warfare State, deficit spending, globalism, and civil liberties, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is FAR WORSE than the Democrat Party. In general terms, the Democrat Party is worse on issues that deal with gun control, welfare, abortion, gay marriage, and extremist environmentalist policies. As one should easily be able to see, there is no “lesser of two evils” between these two parties. Each party is a greater evil, depending on the issue. And taken as a whole, both parties in Washington, D.C., are selling our liberties down the river.

But this so-called Obamatrade bill is a nightmare. If you thought NAFTA and GATT are bad (and they are), Obamatrade (TPP) is far worse. Even worse is that congressional leaders will not allow the public to know what’s in the bill. Heck, most of the congressmen and senators who are voting on the bill don’t know what’s in it.

Matt Drudge paraphrases Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) angrily growling at reporters: “You will read it after we pass it.” What a pompous, arrogant blockhead Mr. Ryan is. Obviously, he has been in Congress too long.

One of the senators who did read the bill is Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama). And he is doing his best to warn the American people about just how horrific this bill really is. Breitbart.com recently interviewed one of Senator Sessions’ staff leaders regarding the impact of passing TPP.

“Stephen Miller, one of the staff leaders for Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), joined Breitbart News Sunday and was asked by Breitbart’s Executive Chairman and host, Stephen K. Bannon: ‘Isn’t the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) really a global governance deal, rather than a trade agreement? Is this a way to get the United States into a Pacific Union, as Senator Sessions lays out, that is very much like the European Union?’

“‘That’s exactly what is happening here,’ said Miller. ‘The Pacific Union that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) refers to is the new transnational governance body that would be created by the Transpacific Partnership.’

“‘What this means,’ explained Miller, ‘is the house and the senate together would be authorizing the president to enter the United States into a new trans-national union.’

“The Union would consist at first of twelve countries, but additional countries could join and be added over time. ‘It could issue regulations about labor policy, about immigration policy, about environmental policies, and many other areas impacting American life, American jobs, and American wages.’

“Also appearing on the program, which airs on Sirius XM, Patriot Radio, channel 125, was Lord Christopher Monckton. Monckton, who served as a policy advisor for former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, argues that a Trans Pacific Union would bear a significant resemblance to the European Union, which Monckton insists is a serious detriment to democracy and leads to dictatorship.”

“As a result, Miller added, ‘the president can enter into an unlimited number of large sweeping international agreements. And, congress can’t filibuster them, at any point, for the next six full years.’

“Monckton retorted, ‘We’ve used this word before on this program–dictatorship. This is dictatorship.’”

See the report here:

TPP Enters USA Into A ‘New Trans-National Union’

The Obamatrade bill was proffered in two roll call votes. According to the rules established by House leaders, BOTH bills had to pass in order for “fast track” trade authority to be granted to President Obama. Boehner did this because he knew it would fail in one vote, as it was widely opposed by both Republican freedomists (a small group but enough to help defeat the bill) and liberal Democrats (liberals are not wrong on every issue). He was hoping he could muster enough support from both groups by separating the votes. His plan backfired. The first bill failed by a wide margin; so even though the second bill passed (barely), it was a moot point. The way to find the Republican rebels (America-first constitutionalists) is to look at the ones who voted against Obamatrade on BOTH votes. Here are those 37 brave Republican House members:

Justin Amash (MI); Dave Brat (VA); James Bridenstine (OK); Mo Brooks (AL); Ken Buck (CO); Michael Burgess (TX); Curt Clawson (FL); Doug Collins (GA); Chris Collins (NY); Paul Cook (CA); Jeff Duncan (SC); John J. Duncan (TN); Morgan Griffith (VA); Andy Harris (MD); Duncan Hunter (CA); Lynn Jenkins (KS); Walter Jones (NC); Jim Jordan (OH); David Joyce (OH); Raul Labrador (ID); Frank LoBiondo (NJ); Richard Nugent (FL); Gary Palmer (AL); Steve Pearce (NM); Scott Perry (PA); Bruce Poliquin (ME); Bill Posey (FL); Dana Rohrabacher (CA); Keith Rothfus (PA); Steve Russell (OK); Chris Smith (NJ); Daniel Webster (FL); Lynn Westmoreland (GA); Rob Wittman (VA); Ted Yoho (FL); Don Young (AK); Lee Zeldon (NY).

If you live in the district of one of these congressmen, you can be very proud of your representative.

And for those GOP House members who voted “Nay” on either vote, there is retribution from the Republican leadership. NationalJournal.com has this part of the story:

“House Republican leaders are cracking down on rebellious members after a near-disaster on a trade vote last week.

“Reps. Cynthia Lummis, Steve Pearce, and Trent Franks have been removed from the whip team after they sided with GOP rebels to vote against a rule governing debate on a trade bill, according to sources close to the team.”

“But House Majority Whip Steve Scalise had said earlier in the year that he would not tolerate members voting against rules and has already removed two other members [Jeff Duncan and Ron DeSantis] close to the conservative movement.”

See the report here:

Three Booted From GOP Whip Team As Leaders Crack Down

As for House Democrats, they held together in their opposition to TPP even when President Barack Obama personally went to Capitol Hill and lobbied them to support it. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) must be given credit on this issue, as she held fast in her opposition to TPP and encouraged Democrats to stand together in opposing it–which they did.

What is it about Democrat presidents who campaign against these so-called “free trade” deals when they are candidates and then become full-fledged supporters of the deals after being elected? Bill Clinton did the exact same thing. It just further demonstrates what I’ve been saying all along: at the highest levels of government, party affiliation, party platforms, and promises to party grassroots mean NOTHING. Powerbrokers are calling the shots; and the President (no matter the party) is too often but a pawn of these Machiavellians.

And if there is any issue that these international elites who are dominating Washington politics are doggedly determined to bring into being, it is the breakdown of national economic borders and the establishment of a global financial system.

Of course, one cannot have a global financial system without enacting a global political and military system to control and manage it. And, that, folks, is what all of these wars in the Middle East are about. It has NOTHING to do with the “war on terror.” It is all about establishing global government. The global elite are merely manipulating the West vs. Muslim façade to bring down those governments in the Middle East (Iran and Syria) that refuse to submit to the Federal Reserve’s international banking system and bring the oil-rich region of the Middle East completely under the Fed’s control.

Consider this: Saudi Arabia beheads far more people than ISIS. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one country that is indeed governed by strict Sharia Law. Yet, the United States considers the Saudis our dear friends and allies. And Christians seem totally oblivious to Saudi Arabia’s barbarism and intolerance. When is the last time you heard any pastor or Christian calling for war against Saudi Arabia?

Furthermore, independent news agencies are reporting that the United States is actually ASSISTING ISIS militarily.

Please take the time to read this report:

Anti-ISIS Coalition Forces Are The Target: US Warplanes Strike Iraqi Army Position, US Delivers Weapons To Terrorists

Folks, please turn off FOX News long enough to do some independent research. America is not at war with ISIS. America’s CIA created ISIS and continues to assist it. The U.S. government is using ISIS to attack its real target: the leaders of Iran and Syria who staunchly stand in the way of the U.S./Saudi Arabia/Israel machinations to centralize the banking systems of the Middle East. That is what the wars in the Middle East are truly about.

At this writing (Tuesday, June 16), GOP leaders and President Obama are collaborating on how to bring “fast track” trade authority back to the House floor for passage. But for now, it was House Democrats and that small number of Republican rebels who saved the day on Obamatrade.

P.S. Let me remind readers that we have just produced an hour-long DVD wherein Attorney Tim Baldwin lectures (complete with instructional slides) on the topic: “Police Contact: How To Respond.”

Tim explains your rights and the law regarding police contacts in a variety of circumstances, such as traffic stops, etc. He explains the rights and protections you have under the Constitution. He presents a constitutional, legal analysis of what you should and shouldn’t do when brought into contact with a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or highway patrolman.

Tim is a former felony prosecutor and is now a criminal defense attorney. He has seen both sides of the criminal justice system and is imminently qualified to discuss this subject. He knows that for an attorney to best protect his or her clients, his clients need to know how to protect themselves before and during the investigative and arrest procedures.

Police officers are SERVANTS of the People and are as obligated to obey the Constitution as are each of us. Knowing these rights and protections will give you much CONFIDENCE when you are pulled over by a police officer.

Let me hasten to say that I am ALWAYS respectful to a police officer. And so should we always be. We must respect his position. But mostly, we must respect the law that he, the police officer, is sworn to uphold. But how can we respect the law if we don’t even know and understand the law? How can officers improve their law-enforcement practice unless citizens know when police are following the law? How is the legal system benefited if police can trample citizens’ constitutional rights with the consent of the people? Tim’s DVD will help tremendously in this regard.

In light of the climate that we all live in today, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we become familiar with our constitutional rights and responsibilities. If enough of the American people would learn these constitutional principles, they could stem the growing tide of unconstitutional conduct by our public servants, including, and especially, by those in law enforcement.

Here is where you can order the DVD, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” by Attorney Tim Baldwin.

Police Contact: How To Respond

© 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 – Equipping You With The Truth