Independence Now And Forever - Pastor Chuck Baldwin

by Chuck Baldwin
July 3, 2007

On this Independence Day, it behooves us to recall the principles of America's founding, especially in light of the ongoing attempt by today's political and commercial leaders to merge the United States into a hemispheric government. In fact, the clarion call for independence is just as fundamental, just as revolutionary as it was 230 years ago.

Regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence John Adams said, "[Independence Day] will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore."

Adams went on to say, "You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not."

Indeed, the signers of America's Declaration of Independence endured the sacrifice of toil and blood. Pertaining to the lives of the signers, David Limbaugh writes, "Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his thirteen children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned."

Yes, America's Declaration of Independence, which is our nation's birth certificate, was purchased at a very high price. Rightly did its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, invoke God's name no less than four times in the Declaration. Without God, our struggle for independence and freedom would have surely failed!

Jefferson, along with the vast majority of America's founders, knew that freedom was first the gift of God, not the accomplishment of men. He further understood that man's law must be subordinate to the natural laws of God.

Therefore, with an appeal to Heaven for the "rectitude of [their] intentions," America's Founding Fathers courageously forged a document that would put their own lives at risk, but would also change the course of history.

The question now is, "How long can we maintain our nation's independence?" The forces of global government seem to dominate both major parties in Washington, D.C., most corporate boardrooms, and most newsrooms (including the Fox News Channel).

In fact, hemispheric or regional government never had a more powerful and committed ally than President George W. Bush. Mark my words, if and when America loses its independence, it will have been G.W. Bush that led the way in making it happen. I will even be so bold as to say that G.W. Bush is the worst enemy American independence has had since old King George III of England!

Even as I write, Bush is pushing forward with his intentions to merge the United States into a trilateral government with Mexico and Canada. This is why he lobbied so intently for the just-defeated amnesty bill for illegal aliens. To George W. Bush, there is no such thing as an illegal alien, because he has already agreed to unite the three countries into one.

If the United States is going to maintain its independence and freedom much beyond the year 2010 (the year Bush's new North American Union is scheduled to be in place), it will only be because millions of freedom-loving Americans are willing to fight for it.

Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. Daniel Webster gave the eulogy for both men on August 2. Included in his remarks on that notable day were these words: "It [the Declaration of Independence] is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and independence forever."

To Webster's words, I say a hearty AMEN! I promise no loyalty to the North American Union, to the United Nations, or to any other brand of global government. When the day comes that I am required to submit to any form of global authority, I will be an outlaw! There is no freedom without independence, and there is no independence without eternal vigilance. To my dying breath I will say with Daniel Webster, "Independence now, and independence forever!"

(End note: we are still shipping FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, a compilation of 50 of America's finest historical documents in one volume. Our supply is dwindling fast, so order your copy today! See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html)

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070703.html

Recapturing the Spirit of Independence - Ron Paul

---

Recapturing the Spirit of Independence

July 2, 2007

This week Americans will gather around the grill, attend parades and watch fireworks displays, all in the celebration of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. At the same time, we will have thousands of bureaucrats, troops and agents stationed in countries across the globe being paid by American tax dollars.

On the anniversary of our declaring our own independence from the British, it is certainly appropriate that we reflect on the nature and spirit of independent nationhood. While our founding fathers were individual men in a historically unique situation, they posited that the principles upon which they rested our national independence were timeless.

If we truly honor the men who brought about Independence Day, we would do well to spend at least as much time reflecting on the Declaration of Independence, and the principles upon which it is based, as we spend at the cookouts, parades, and fireworks displays. With the trend toward globalism that has been with us for the past century, we should be specifically thoughtful about how our celebration of independence can be made consistent with the policies that have been advocated by the American government -- as well as many of the nation’s elite— or what we used to call the Eastern Establishment.

I believe there is no way to square our nation’s traditions and reverence for independence with the globalist policies these elites are currently pursuing. The American concept of independent nationhood inscribed in our Declaration cannot be maintained if we are going to pursue a policy that undermines the independence of other nations. National independence is an idea, and the erosion of the independence of other nations only serves to erode that idea.

At the same time, if we allow the erosion of that idea, by ignoring it in certain instances, we will be contributing to its erosion in all times and nations, even our own. In this way our nation’s independence is linked with the independence of all nations. The sooner we realize this truth, and enact a foreign policy that is consistent with it, the sooner we will be able to recapture the spirit of independence.

In addition, as our founding fathers understood, the idea of national independence is inseparable from that of constitutional republicanism. Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire. Recognizing these same protections is also the very best way to eliminate the need for civil wars and the violence of civil strife.

Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation’s birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.

Ron Paul Schools Neil Cavuto about the Tax System

It's a shame when a gynecologist has to educate a financial guru on financial subjects...

Despite Cavuto's best attempt to associate Ron Paul with advocation of violence by Ron Brown, Ron Paul fearlessly lays down the truth about our corrupt system. Notice how Cavuto cuts him short whenever he can and tries to put words in Dr. Paul's mouth.

Despite Cavuto's attempts, Paul manages to speak total truth on a "financial news" show that should know and talk about the truths he speaks. Instead Neil Cavuto refuses to explore Ron Paul's claims, continually pushing the "how would you fund the government" excuse for unconstitutional taxation.

This is a priceless interview and once again the smear setup media fails miserably to derail Rep. Ron Paul. Instead, FoxNews has revealed itself as anything but "fair and balanced", only inviting Ron Paul on to create controversy.

This is helping Rep. Paul because he is rock steady on message and knows infinately more about constitutional principles than anyone in the mainstream press. Let's pray they continue this game so that truth can continue to get out to the sleeping masses.

Click to Watch the clip:

For reference, this is what Cavuto is apparently refering to in the above clip...this is what Ron Paul had previously said about people (like the Browns) who stand up against "bad" laws, "like Ghandi"...

FAITH UNDER FIRE..

Pastor under investigation says he 'will not stop preaching God's word'

---

Posted: June 2, 2007 - By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily.com..

A Christian church in Kansas has told the Internal Revenue Service that it will not stop teaching and preaching God's Word, "even if it relates to contemporary issues in the world," after the federal agency demanded answers to 31 questions about its beliefs and warned about "political" activity.

Spirit One Christian Center Pastor Mark Holick told WND that the IRS, perhaps, should brush up on the freedoms assured U.S. citizens regarding religion and speech before making such demands in the future.
..>..>

He said the issues the church addressed – and will continue to address – concern issues that the Bible addresses, such as killing and protecting the defenseless.

The response came to a series of questions from the IRS questioning whether the church was involved in "political" activity. In specific, Holick said, the IRS cited a sign that read: "Sebelius accepted $300,000.00 from abortionist Tiller, price of 1000 babies."

But that, he said, was just part of a responsibility on the part of a Christian church to comment on abortion, a red-hot topic in the church's home city of Wichita.

That's also the location of the abortion business of George Tiller, whose political connections in Kansas have been documented by Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization, and reported by WND.

A Christian organization needs to be able to talk of the moral issues of the day – including abortion, Holick noted. The sign just told of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' connections to the abortion industry.

Holick told WND that the IRS letter challenged a variety of the church's activities, including the posting of various pro-life messages on the building marquee.

"They felt like they had a reasonable concern that we had been involved in political activity," he said.

But politics are of no interest to the church; issues of moral character addressed in the Bible are, he said.

..>..>

"The church does not intend to engage in political intervention activity as prohibited by federal law and the United States Constitution," he told the IRS. "But the church will not stop communicating its Biblical message, even if it relates to contemporary issues in the world.

"Thus," Holick continued, "the church cannot agree to not engage in any activity that may favor or oppose a candidate. Simply preaching the word of God on a moral issue which a candidate is opposed, may

He continued: "The United States Constitution guarantees that Spirit One will be able to freely exercise its religion, and that Congress will not pass any law restricting that right. This is all Spirit One wants to do – communicate God's word.

"The 1st Amendment of the Constitution is a respected and renowned oracle celebrated all over the nations of the world. It is quite specific and clear; 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...,'" Holick said.

He said the IRS also raised questions about a voter information guide that was handed out in Wichita, although his church did not sponsor it, as well as an abortion-issue related e-mail he had forwarded.

He said he didn't know who would have filed a complaint about his church with the IRS. "We're a very vocal pro-family, pro-life church," he said. "That creates enemies."

"These are not political issues, these are Gospel issues, Christian issues," he said.

He noted that the IRS even wanted to know whether Phill Kline, the Republican state attorney general who was defeated in his re-election bid in 2006, had ever spoken at the church, and what were the details of his address.

"It's crazy," Holick told WND.

"Please provide a detailed explanation of Mr. Kline's speech. Include details such as the topic of the speech, whether he solicited votes during this speech to the congregation, whether he discussed the election during the speech, and whether he discussed other candidates in the election during the speech," the IRS wrote.

"He ministered from the Bible, mostly the book of Genesis, and on truth. He did not speak about elections or political candidates. But because it was so long ago (2003 and 2004), the church does not remember any more specific details," Holick responded.

To another question about whether certain signs were "political," Holick wrote:

"The signs were not political activities, but rather, were examples of how Spirit One communicates its religious message. The signs all pertained to respect for life and family, a key and fundamental teaching of the scriptures (see Ps. 139:13-15, Jer. 1:4-5, Lk. 1:41-44, Lk. 1:15, Ge. 25:23, Gal. 1:15, Ge. 1:27, Job 10:12, Pr. 24:11-12, Jr. 7:2, Jr. 22:3, 17, Ex. 23:7, Ex. 20:13, Rv. 21:8, Ge. 9:6, 2 Ki. 17:16-20, Jr. 32:35, Jr. 7:31, Mt. 19:5.)."

Holick said the congregation of about 100, meeting as a church for 16 years already, has been strong throughout the challenge by the federal government.

Holick also told the IRS that the signs all "are spiritual messages that communicate God's truth, or are directly related to messages in the Bible." And to the question "why," he said: "The purpose is to obey the Lord, proclaim His Word (the Gospel), and establish His kingdom."

"The following are just a few of the many Scripture references related to the purpose of the signs:

-to lift up Jesus (Ps. 24:7-9)
-to rebuke sin (Lk. 3:8)
-to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8)
-to save babies (Lv. 20:1-5)
-to be honest (Is. 59:14)
-to take a righteous stand (Ps. 9:8)
-to rescue the weak and needy (Ps. 12:5)
-to demonstrate true religion by loving preborn neighbors (Jm. 1:27)
-to call a wicked city to repent (Ex. 23:7)
-to educate and inform about Jesus who IS truth (Jn. 14:6)
-to obey the call to preach, including rebuking (Acts 16:10)
-to stand in the gap against evil (Ez. 22:30)
-to confront hypocrites (1 Ki. 18:17-18)
-to confront immoral politicians (1 Ki. 18)
-to declare the whole counsel of God (Jn. 14:26)
-to disciple children (Pr. 22:6)
-to save America (Dt. 28)
-to stop the shedding of innocent blood (Jr. 22:17)
-to not allow the city to be comfortable while babies are murdered (Pr. 1:32)
-to glorify God (Ps. 86:12)
-to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8)
-to make the Pastor's calling and election sure (2 Pe. 1:3)
-to work out the Pastor's salvation with fear and trembling (Ph. 2:12)
-to take dominion for King Jesus over this wicked city (Dn. 7:14)
-to promote the fear of God, for it is the beginning of wisdom (Pr. 9:10)
-to spark a Revival (Jl. 2:12-13)
-to separate the wheat from the chaff in this church and other churches (Is. 40:24)
-to obey Ephesians 5:11 and reprove the fruitless deeds of darkness (Ep. 5:11)
-to act like a Christian (Jm. 1:27 – what the Bible calls true religion)
-to train others how to act and speak (Jm. 2:22)
-to expose and confront evildoers (Ez. 20:4)
-to prophesy against wickedness (Is. 58:1)
-as an act of worship (Jn. 14:15)"

GOP Debate Setup to Derail Rep. Ron Paul Fails and Backfires

Troy Perkins

The Failed Setup

The FoxNews hosted debate held at the University of South Carolina at Columbia last night started like most modern political debates but progressively transformed into a make believe session of grown men playing tough guys, speculating about a theoretical terror attack on the United States. Along the way Texas Rep. Ron Paul was largely ignored with all but softball questions until, after being left out of three consecutive rounds of questions including abortion, the congressman was asked about the Iraq War, a subject that had already been debated earlier in the evening with all ten participants answering the Iraq issue. What was peculiar about this question to Paul was that the current subject was immigration. Five other candidates had been asked their opinion on immigration before Ron Paul was asked again about the war in Iraq. The congressman commenced to answer honestly, staying true to his constitutional values and stating that the Republicans have lost their way, that non interventionism was the long time tradition of the founding fathers, republicans and the Constitution. He continued by pointing out that war is to be actually declared by the Congress not approved by a resolution, per the Constitution of the United States, and that for that reason he had not supported it from the beginning.

When the moderator followed up by asking him if that "didn't change with the 9-11 attacks" Paul resolutely answered "No", pointing to Ronald Reagan's understanding that we do not understand the "irrationality of Middle East politics." He was then asked "are you suggesting that we invited the 9-11 attacks sir?" Paul answered that he was "suggesting that we listen to the people that attacked us and the reason they did it" pointing out the message of terrorists: that they like Americans in Iraq because we are easier to strike there.
As Ron Paul was being halted by FoxNews' moderation bell, Rudy Giuliani stopped everything with a request to respond which he was immediately granted without objection. The Mayor proceeded to spin Paul's statements after the moderator's attempt to trap Ron Paul into saying that the U.S. invited the attacks of 9-11 directly. But somehow Giuliani was allowed to construct a statement for Ron Paul implying that he actually said "that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq" which of course was never uttered by the congressman.

After the live audience "patriotically" applauded "America's Mayor", he was emboldened to say more, and who were the moderators to stand in his way or allow Paul to clarify what he had said? Suddenly it was like a one sided elementary school yard scuffle where little boys surprise themselves with good insults and are encouraged by on lookers to outdo the previous shot. As the clapping died down, Giuliani glared towards Paul like he had nailed him and then looked back towards the audience for more approval. That look of unsure approval that little kids get when they have their first brush with bravery.

Ron Paul was not addressed again until Rudy Giuliani authoritatively demanded a withdrawal of a statement that the congressman had never uttered. With the moderator's approval, Ron Paul, leaning slightly on the podium like a repetitive professor immediately gave a condensed history lesson about what the CIA calls "blowback". Yea, do an Internet search or re-watch this part of the debate if you don't know what it means. At this point Ron Paul went into statesman mode and spoke with knowledge and wisdom unheard of in debates, but of course being interrupted by the moderation bell chiming again. At least for that moment it did not seem like a debate at all. It was an education. "Could I have thirty seconds please… the, the, they are coming…" jumped Giuliani. Congressman Paul looked on calmly as the moderators reigned in the Mayor before he got himself in trouble. The subject was quickly changed as Ron Paul had calmly started a real discussion of presidential proportions while Giuliani wanted to keep snarling about terrorism and all he had done after 9-11.

Skipping the Strong Candidate on Strong Issues

One telling factor of this debate was the fact that Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson received the fewest questions; four, while McCain had six, and Romney and Giuliani had seven. The more important thing to note is that Ron Paul was completely kept from answering the questions on abortion and Immigration, two issues that no one else on stage could compare with him on.

Fair and Balanced Time

Also worthy of noting was the total times the candidates were allowed to talk. Aside from Ron Paul, the three "top tier" candidates, Romney, McCain and Giuliani, all talked between six and a half to over seven minutes. Paul was given about six and a half minutes total but nearly a full three minutes of that were spent answering the second Iraq question (he was the only candidate required to answer the same question fully and separately twice) and the follow-up history lesson he was required to give the other candidates and the nation after Giuliani tried to put words in his mouth. So Ron Paul in effect had less than four minutes of real talking time on issues comparatively.

The Terrorism Drill

Just like September 11, 2001 itself, there was a terror drill last night. Towards the end of the debate, the ten contenders were subjected to a mock terror drill "real time" to see how they would respond. This brainstorm session brought out the best in the would be kings as a third of them clearly expressed their support to authorize torture if they were President in a situation that John McCain admitted was a "one in a million" scenario.

• Mitt Romney was for torture as long as we change it's name to "enhanced interrogation techniques",
• Giuliani was against it if it's called torture but for it if it's called something else,
• Mike Huckabee implied Americans must be willing to give up liberty for security (something Franklin warned against),
• Tom Tancredo said he would call on the fictional character "Jack Bauer" (he does know that 24 is a TV show, right?),
• Jim Gilmore said he would goto the United Nations and form Homeland Security (don't we already have that?),
• Sam Brownback said we would do whatever it took
• Tommy Thompson said we could attack any country where terrorists trained (someone needs to point out that the 9-11 hijackers trained in the US including on military bases),
• Duncan Hunter said he would give his Secretary of Defense an hour to give him a plan.

When it was Ron Paul's turn to play spin the terror drill, the moderator gave him the economic policies to work on. The congressman brushed through the softball question and went on to point out that torture had become "newspeak" as "enhanced interrogation techniques" as used in the debate and that America had still neglected to deal with those responsible for 9-11-01 after the congress gave the President authority to go into Afghanistan. He further pointed out the likelihood that Bin Laden is (supposedly) in Pakistan who already has nuclear weapons and to whom we give money to. Paul pointed out the ridiculousness of talking about hypothetical terror attacks while we have forgotten those responsible for 9-11.

After the Debate

The debate ended shortly after a few more unrelated questions lobbed to a few of the candidates. Hannity and Colmes reported immediately afterward that Ron Paul was winning their own phone text poll with 30% after over 20,000 votes with Romney close behind and Giuliani in a distant third. Despite that poll being FoxNews' own poll, Shawn Hannity made it clear that he did not agree with the poll and joined other commentators there that those polls mean nothing anyway. Well why did they even have the poll in the first place? The final poll, according to FoxNews' website had Romney first and Paul in second place. As a side note, MSNBC's web poll had Ron Paul winning with over 30,000 votes total for last night's debate with 46%, Romney in second with 24% and Giuliani in third with 24%.

It's not even a question what last nights antics were about but truth wins in the end and now Ron Paul is forcing the controlled media to acknowledge him as not only a top contender in the 2008 Republican run, but the right man to be the first true statesman president in the White House in decades.

There is hope, get informed and get involved.