On Christian Broadcasters and Nazi Like Devotion

Christian Fundamentalism (Sect of the Pharisees--SOP) as a whole is, in my opinion, one of the most malignant, pernicious and destructive forces of which I am aware and in which I have taken part. Not anymore.

You see, I have seen and been on the receiving end of the work of the hands of the "best" in Christian broadcasting and fundamentalism, rather, I have been the dupe of these folks and used and tossed aside when my presence was no longer a benefit.

These folks seem to forget something: You may not build your kingdoms on the backs of slaves.

And you may not expect the Nazi like devotion and loyalty to you to remain in tact either. The Truth is the Truth.

In most every business dealing and church dealing that I have had with these fundamentalist folks, my experience of and with these people has been less than acceptable. Christian morality, apparently, does not apply in the real world or when you have a broadcast kingdom to protect or a multi-million dollar business to run....created and enabled by the people like me who are in the end so much cannon fodder for your endeavors and dispensible----

Guinea Pigs.

This applies whether you are a christian broadcaster or head church deacon and business man.

The SOP's may have forgotten. I have not.

Revisiting Christian Broadcasters and Unquestioned Loyalty

Ingrid Schlueter of VCY America and Slice Of Laodicea posted a comment here regarding the evangelical/fundamentalist reactions to questioning the current presidential and congressional leadership in power. Her comment deserves its own comment section----in fact probably a book rather than a comment section----but here it is:


Actually, the time I went on the radio last year and questioned the President's foreign policy in Iraq, I got my head taken off. I have never gotten such hate mail in all my life. Christians don't want honest analysis, they want a slogan, a bumper sticker and an American flag. I gave up and gave them what they want to be completely honest. If Ron Paul's people would return phone calls, he'd be welcome on Crosstalk. I oppose the war in Iraq from the first day of the invasion. I predicted disaster because of the history of that nation and the uncanny ability these people have of nursing a grudge for thousands of years. You can't export democracy like cheeseburgers. You have to have an underlying worldview that supports the rights of the individual, etc. Islam will never have anything but a pile of bodies and burned out cars to show for their worldview. You can quote me on that. Just noticed your blog today and had to comment. Regards.

I think Ingrid is correct in her assessment about what Christians want to hear these days----and it is a siren song playing rather than the truth...a slogan, a bumper sticker, and an American flag------the sound of an idiot signifying nothing, as Shakespeare once put it....

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–2

Hate mail from Christians??????? Undying Nazi like devotion to an illusion? This attitude and mindset is far more prevalent and ingrained in the fabric of all of our personalities than we would like to think and broaches all boundaries political/social/religious ....

Fundamentalism is so much like Facism that it is hard to distinguish the two sometimes.....

Ingrid says she has "given up" trying to inform the Christian community regarding the truth...I really understand. So have I.

But---this reality has made me rethink what REAL Christianity is and is not----real Christians will not be the voice of warmed over facism dressed up like evangelical Methodism or otherwise. (I seriously doubt our current President could even tell you what the content of the Methodist Book of Discipline is let alone the content of the Bible or the Constitution.)

I also have to revise my assessment of NASCAR and the NASCAR mentality. The sport is not totally without some value. My comments re the "NASCAR mentality" were directed toward those who are continuous mindless spectators, consumed with self pleasure....much of NASCAR and those who participate in the sport are not mindless---far from it. I simply do not want to make glittering generalities and oversimplified statements any more.....

I used to do that at VCY America when i worked there-----no more. I don't have to worry about donations like some do.....I work for a living. I do not prey on the fears and hopes of people with the intent of prying loose some cash so as to perpetuate my kingdom/organization/broadcasting facility and the lifestyle to which those who do so have become accustomed. Manipulation comes in all colors, shapes, and sizes.

Adhering to my policy regarding glittering generalities: I have personal knowledge of some of the above activities and participated in the hatred, assisted in generating the fear and manipulation. I did believe what i was doing was right----however, my sincerity does not mitigate the gross errors and malevolent intent.

I have news for all who engage in such activity: You are going to die----what will you leave behind? Answer?: Everything.

No Longer a Spin Doctor: The Manipulation of the Religious Right....is the name of my upcoming book. The sad core truth is that fundamentalism/evangelicalism are both the manipulators and manipulatees. (Is that a word?)

And, Ingrid, I understand your predicament----you will work it out. I did. Blessings to ALL of your family---truly----you were once my family too. Just understand that i see the beauty in all of you as well as everything else.....and I never intended harm in any way. In fact, I would, if I could, revisit 2000-2003 as well as 1994-2000 and do things alot differently.

Age and experience have their benefits. I am thankful today for being set free from the sect of the Pharisees.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone----remember what this day is all about.

The Editor

On Enumerated Powers

"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 14, 30 November 1787)

Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 14

The Illusion of Hope and The Painful Truth

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."


-- Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Convention, 23 March 1775)

Forget Impeachment: Grab The Tar And Feathers by Chuck Baldwin March 13, 2007

(Chuck Baldwin comes up with yet another controversial opionon re the war in Iraq---I do not agree with Chuck's opinion re the death of Sadaam Hussein, however---I do care that such an atrocity and sham of justice occurred without bringing all of the players---Bush, Cheney, most of the U.S. House and Senate and the private corporate individuals---- into the courtroom with him to face charges of crimes against humanity. All of these folks have committed acts as heinous as he did and continue to commit acts of greater debauchery-----This article should be yet another proof to Christian broadcasting facilities that they should be listening to and making available via their facilities ALL of the Christian opinions out there rather than just regurgitating the spin of the current administration's lies and mistruths.

It is undisputed fact that the United States put Sadaam Hussein in power, provided various forms of weapons (including chemical weapons) to him, financed and underwrote his authority and power, while he remained beneficial to the private corporate interests which obviously run our government and its international policy. The list of US erected despots doesn't stop with Sadaam: Manuel Noriega, The Shah, the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and yes, even the CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden.

Why do these nation makers and breakers believe they have the right to engineer the governments of sovereign nations? Only to depose and murder those whom we initially treated as "friends," though I use that term very loosely. And how do these facts get by the American public at large? (I understand how it gets by the Christian community---and I will refrain from going further with that thought as I only have very unkind things to say in that regard.)

I pray that the Christian broadcasters across this country and the broadcasting facilities would stop with the repetition of the mindless mantra in support of an obviously corrupt and malevolent group of people who use religion as a stalking horse for their own political and financial enurement at the cost of our liberties and the lives of our children. --Editor)

In this column last week, I asked the question, Should President George W. Bush be impeached? The specific precursor for that question was the guilty verdict of former White House insider Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In my mind, that trial and subsequent conviction demonstrated that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a thorough investigation into whether President Bush willfully manipulated evidence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq and whether he deliberately lied to the American people in order to justify a pre-determined plan to launch a preemptive attack on that country.

In all the years of writing this column, I cannot recall one that elicited more response, positive and negative. Furthermore, respondents were split evenly down the middle. Half wanted to enshrine my face on Mount Rushmore, while the other half wanted to personally cast me into the lake of fire.

A brief digression regarding the WMD matter is the critically important question as to whether the White House believed Saddam Hussein had WMD CAPABLE OF THREATENING THE UNITED STATES. Emphasis is added on purpose, as most of the "Of-course-Iraq-had-WMD" crowd seem to equate Hussein's use of intermediate WMD against the Kurds with the ability to pose a "clear and present danger" to the United States. The two are not remotely related.

Please don't misunderstand me. I could not care less that Saddam Hussein is dead. He died the way most dictators die. He lived by the sword; he died by the sword. Or, by the rope, actually.

However, please remember that Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds because they staged a violent insurrection against his reign. What do you think George Bush would do if a group of people violently tried to oust him from power? I seem to recall a President and Attorney General sending tanks and helicopter gun ships against mostly old men, women, and children outside Waco, Texas, a few years back. And those poor folks had no intention of overthrowing the Texas capital, much less Washington, D.C.

The relevant question is not, Did Iraq have WMD, but did they have WMD CAPABLE OF THREATENING THE UNITED STATES? Everyone now knows the answer to that question is, no, it did not. But what we don't know is, When did President Bush know the answer to that question?

If our President knew that Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States, and if he deliberately deceived the American people and sent more than 3,000 of America's finest to their deaths for ulterior motives (whatever they were), the man is certainly guilty of "high crimes" and should be impeached, at the very least.

Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know anyone who does (outside Bush and his inner circle). Therefore, I stand behind my initial statement that we need a thorough investigation to find out the truth. It would seem to me that, regardless of where each of us falls down politically, we would want to know the answer to that question. Unless we are afraid of the truth, of course.

All of that aside, there is one grievance that is sticking like a bone in my throat about this administration: its careless disregard for the security of our national borders. President Bush, along with Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, are in the process of turning America into a third world country. Their attempt to provide amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens and to virtually vanquish our national borders is nothing short of criminal. As President, Mr. Bush has taken it even further than that.

Without congressional oversight or knowledge, President Bush committed the United States to a trilateral union with Mexico and Canada. He put his stamp of approval upon a mammoth NAFTA superhighway. He has given the green light for thousands of Mexican trucks to enter the United States. He has turned his back on American Border Patrol agents who were simply trying to enforce our country's immigration laws. And he has done all this with impunity.

What makes President Bush's policy of open borders even more egregious is the argument that some Bush apologists make by saying that Iraq's limited WMD could be snuck into the United States, and, therefore, we had to invade Iraq. Well, duh! If President Bush really believed that Iraq was going to smuggle WMD into America, why did he not close the borders?

Furthermore, countries that most certainly do have WMD capable of threatening the United States include Russia and China. Does anyone (George W. Bush included) believe we should invade those countries? The fact is, if terrorists from any country have smuggled WMD into the U.S., we can thank President Bush and his fellow travelers in Congress for opening the door.

The reason that Congress is unwilling to stop President Bush on the open borders issue is because Democrats and Republicans alike are on the take. Democrats are appeasing their radical, multiculturalist cronies and Republicans are appeasing their Chamber of Commerce sugar daddies. Neither the Jackasses nor the Pachyderms give a flip about what is best for middle-class America or whether what they are doing will eventually destroy the sovereignty and independence of our country.

With or without Iraq, President Bush is a disaster. And Congress (with either party in charge) is no better. If we lived in the old days, we would not be talking about impeachment, we would be grabbing the tar and feathers.

© Chuck Baldwin

Support of the Troops...but not the War in Iraq

Today one of the larger Christian radio networks (VCY America) produced a broadcast with a guest who states that you cannot support the troops in Iraq without supporting their mission there.....the question that remains in my mind is: what is our mission there? Let me quote the blurb from VCY America's web site:

"Major Eric Egland is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and has served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. His experience includes working to defeat terrorism, narcotics trafficking and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Major Egland believes you can't divide support for the troops and support for the mission. He feels we need to succeed in Iraq and to play games with the funding undermines the success of our mission there."

I have not listened to the broadcast yet, however, even allowing such a person on the air really gives me the idea that his position is the one the producers of Crosstalk wish us to take, believe and endorse.

I have in the past counted on the discernment of the producers of Crosstalk, (VCY's nationally syndicated radio talk show), to see past the smoke and mirrors on most issues. (Not all, but most.) It would appear that on this one, the producers of Crosstalk have missed the mark in the face of the overwhelming mountain of mistruths and mistatements of fact by the Bush administration re weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the entire basis for our invasion of a sovereign nation. This current middle east conflict appears very much to be based on a fabrication much as the first Gulf War was based on fabrication and in reality, based on the personal interests of the Commander in Chief at that time---and this time as well.

I really hope that VCY, in the interest of equal time on the issue, would have Congressman Ron Paul on to discuss the war in Iraq. It seems to me that a member of the foreign intelligence committee in Congress might have some salient and cogent remarks on the issue...speaking of which, read the following speech made by Congressman Paul:

"HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started. We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now? "

It is a shame that VCY would participate in such one sidedness-----particularly giving air time to such propaganda as voiced by Major Eric England. Dissent is the very basis of the fabric of which this country was formed---especially dissent in the face of the likes of George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and their kind: puppets and puppet masters.

Surely VCY America, a Christian broadcasting facility, is better than this...we will see. I humbly suggest that if VCY America is interested in promoting a Christian world view they might listen to Congressman Paul and at least have the moral courage to give equal time to patriotic dissent instead of being the voice piece of the NASCAR mentality.

Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul? by Chuck Baldwin February 27, 2007

Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.

The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.

For example, Jerry Falwell's widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled "Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates." A total of ten Republicans made the Journal's list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell's list. Why is this? Why do evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?

Ron Paul received his Bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air National Guard.

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman's true conservative record out there.

Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell's Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.
For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative's conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?

The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today's evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.

Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.

Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich "a true American statesman." McCain is called "pro-life." Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don't be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain's strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, "Gov. Romney . . . shares our values." Of Giuliani, NLJ states, "On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives."

However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.

Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to "pick a winner." Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don't expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.

However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America's evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.

As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush "one of us," they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.

© Chuck Baldwin

The Pursuit of God - Chapter 1

Following hard after God

My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upholdeth me.Ps. 63:8

Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him; imperfect it may be, but a true work nonetheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow.

We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. `No man can come to me,' said our Lord, `except the Father which hath sent me draw him,' and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for he act of coming. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: `Thy right hand upholdeth me.' In this divine `upholding' and human `following' there is no contradiction. All is of God, for as von Hugel teaches, God is always previous.

In practice, however, (that is, where God's previous working meets man's present response) man must pursue God. On our part there must be positive reciprocation if this secret drawing of God is to eventuate in identifiable experience of the Divine. In the warm language of personal feeling this is stated in the Forty-second Psalm: `As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?' This is deep calling unto deep, and the longing heart will understand it.

The doctrine of justification by faith--a Biblical truth, and a blessed relief from sterile legalism and unavailing self-effort--has in our time fallen into evil company and been interpreted by many in such manner as actually to bar men from the knowledge of God. The whole transaction of religious conversion has been made mechanical and spiritless. Faith may now be exercised without a jar to the moral life and without embarrassment to the Adamic ego. Christ may be `received' without creating any special love for Him in the soul of the receiver. The man is `saved,' but he is not hungry nor thirsty after God. In fact he is specifically taught to be satisfied and encouraged to be content with little.

The modern scientist has lost God amid the wonders of His world; we Christians are in real danger of losing God amid the wonders of His Word. We have almost forgotten that God is a Person and, as such, can be cultivated as any person can. It is inherent in personality to be able to know other personalities, but full knowledge of one personality by another cannot be achieved in one encounter. It is only after long and loving mental intercourse that the full possibilities of both can be explored.

All social intercourse between human beings is a response of personality to personality, grading upward from the most casual brush between man and man to the fullest, most intimate communion of which the human soul is capable. Religion, so far as it is genuine, is in essence the response of created personalities to the Creating Personality, God. `This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.' (John 17:3)

God is a Person, and in the deep of His mighty nature He thinks, wills, enjoys feels, loves, desires and suffers as any other person may. In making Himself known to us He stays by the familiar pattern of personality. He communicates with us through the avenues of our minds, our wills and our emotions. The continuous and unembarrassed interchange of love and thought between God and the soul of the redeemed man is the throbbing heart of New Testament religion.

This intercourse between God and the soul is known to us in conscious personal awareness. It is personal: that is, it does not come through the body of believers, as such, but is known to the individual, and to the body through the individuals which compose it. And it is conscious: that is, it does not stay below the threshold of consciousness and work there unknown to the soul (as, for instance, infant baptism is thought by some to do), but comes within the field of awareness where the man can `know' it as he knows any other fact of experience.

You and I are in little (our sins excepted) what God is in large. Being made in His image we have within us the capacity to know Him. In our sins we lack only the power. The moment the Spirit has quickened us to life in regeneration our whole being senses its kinship to God and leaps up in joyous recognition. That is the heavenly birth without which we cannot see the Kingdom of God. It is, however, not an end but an inception, for now begins the glorious pursuit, the heart's happy exploration of the infinite riches of the Godhead. That is where we begin, I say, but where we stop no man has yet discovered, for there is in the awful and mysterious depths of the Triune God neither limit nor end.

Shoreless Ocean, who can sound Thee?
Thine own eternity is round Thee,
Majesty divine!

To have found God and still to pursue Him is the soul's paradox of love, scorned indeed by the too-easily- satisfied religionist, but justified in happy experience by the children of the burning heart. St. Bernard stated this holy paradox in a musical quatrain that will be instantly understood by every worshipping soul:

We taste Thee, O Thou Living Bread,
And long to feast upon Thee still:
We drink of Thee, the Fountainhead
And thirst our souls from Thee to fill.

Come near to the holy men and women of the past and you will soon feel the heat of their desire after God. They mourned for Him, they prayed and wrestled and sought for Him day and night, in season and out, and when they had found Him the finding was all the sweeter for the long seeking. Moses used the fact that he knew God as an argument for knowing Him better. `Now, therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight'; and from there he rose to make the daring request, `I beseech thee, show me thy glory.' God was frankly pleased by this display of ardour, and the next day called Moses into the mount, and there in solemn procession made all His glory pass before him.

David's life was a torrent of spiritual desire, and his psalms ring with the cry of the seeker and the glad shout oft he finder. Paul confessed the mainspring of his life to be his burning desire after Christ. `That I may know Him,' was the goal of his heart, and to this he sacrificed everything. `Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may win Christ' (Phil 3:8).

Hymnody is sweet with the longing after God, the God whom, while the singer seeks, he knows he has already found. `His track I see and I'll pursue,' sang our fathers only a short generation ago, but that song is heard no more in the great congregation. How tragic that we in this dark day have had our seeking done for us by our teachers. Everything is made to center upon the initial act of `accepting' Christ (a term, incidentally, which is not found in the Bible) and we are not expected thereafter to crave any further revelation of God to our souls. We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him we need no more seek Him. This is set before us as the last word in orthodoxy, and it is taken for granted that no Bible-taught Christian ever believed otherwise. Thus the whole testimony of the worshipping, seeking, singing Church on that subject is crisply set aside. The experiential heart- theology of a grand army of fragrant saints is rejected in favor of a smug interpretation of Scripture which would certainly have sounded strange to an Augustine, a Rutherford or a Branierd.

In the midst of this great chill there are some, I rejoice to acknowledge, who will not be content with shallow logic. They will admit the force of the argument, and then turn away with tears to hunt some lonely place and pray, `O God, show me thy glory.' They want to taste, to touch with their hearts, to see with their inner eyes the wonder that is God.

I want deliberately to encourage this mighty longing after God. The lack of it has brought us to our present low estate. The stiff and wooden quality about our religious lives is a result of our lack of holy desire. Complacency is a deadly foe of all spiritual growth. Acute desire must be present or there will be no manifestation of Christ to His people. He waits to be wanted. Too bad that with many of us He waits so long, so very long, in vain.

Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations and a world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart. The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and the servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all.

If we would find God amid all the religious externals we must first determine to find Him, and then proceed in the way of simplicity. Now as always God discovers Himself to `babes' and hides Himself in thick darkness from the wise and the prudent. We must simplify our approach to Him. We must strip down to essentials (and they will be found to be blessedly few). We must put away all effort to impress, and come with the guileless candor of childhood. If we do this, without doubt God will quickly respond.

When religion has said its last word, there is little that we need other than God Himself. The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the `and' lies our great woe. If we omit the `and', we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing.

We need not fear that in seeking God only we may narrow our lives or restrict the motions of our expanding hearts. The opposite is true. We can well afford to make God our All, to concentrate, to sacrifice the many for the One.

The author of the quaint old English classic, The Cloud of Unknowing, teaches us how to do this. `Lift up thine heart unto God with a meek stirring of love; and mean Himself, and none of His goods. And thereto, look thee loath to think on aught but God Himself. So that nought work in thy wit, nor in thy will, but only God Himself. This is the work of the soul that most pleaseth God.'

Again, he recommends that in prayer we practice a further stripping down of everything, even of our theology. `For it sufficeth enough, a naked intent direct unto God without any other cause than Himself.' Yet underneath all his thinking lay the broad foundation of New Testament truth, for he explains that by `Himself' he means `God that made thee, and bought thee, and that graciously called thee to thy degree.' And he is all for simplicity: If we would have religion `lapped and folden in one word, for that thou shouldst have better hold thereupon, take thee but a little word of one syllable: for so it is better than of two, for even the shorter it is the better it accordeth with the work of the Spirit. And such a word is this word God or this word love.'

When the Lord divided Canaan among the tribes of Israel, Levi received no share of the land. God said to him simply, `I am thy part and thine inheritance,' and by those words made him richer than all his brethren, richer than all the kings and rajas who have ever lived in the world. And there is a spiritual principle here, a principle still valid for every priest of the Most High God.

The man who has God for his treasure has all things in One. Many ordinary treasures may be denied him, or if he is allowed to have them, the enjoyment of them will be so tempered that they will never be necessary to his happiness. Or if he must see them go, one after one, he will scarcely feel a sense of loss, for having the Source of all things he has in One all satisfaction, all pleasure, all delight. Whatever he may lose he has actually lost nothing, for he now has it all in One, and he has it purely, legitimately and forever.

O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both satisfied me and made me thirsty for more. I am painfully conscious of my need of further grace. I am ashamed of my lack of desire. O God, the Triune God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still. Show me Thy glory, I pray Thee, that so I may know Thee indeed. Begin in mercy a new work of love within me. Say to my soul, `Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.' Then give me grace to rise and follow Thee up from this misty lowland where I have wandered so long. In Jesus' name, Amen.

The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer

Preface

In this hour of all-but-universal darkness one cheering gleam appears: within the fold of conservative Christianity there are to be found increasing numbers of persons whose religious lives are marked by a growing hunger after God Himself. They are eager for spiritual realities and will not be put off with words, nor will they be content with correct `interpretations' of truth. They are athirst for God, and they will not be satisfied till they have drunk deep at the Fountain of Living Water. This is the only real harbinger of revival which I have been able to detect anywhere on the religious horizon. It may be the cloud the size of a man's hand for which a few saints here and there have been looking. It can result in a resurrection of life for many souls and a recapture of that radiant wonder which should accompany faith in Christ, that wonder which has all but fled the Church of God in our day. But this hunger must be recognized by our religious leaders.

Current evangelicalism has (to change the figure) laid the altar and divided the sacrifice into parts, but now seems satisfied to count the stones and rearrange the pieces with never a care that there is not a sign of fire upon the top of lofty Carmel. [See 1 Kings 18 for the allusions.-ccp] But God be thanked that there are a few who care. They are those who, while they love the altar and delight in the sacrifice, are yet unable to reconcile themselves to the continued absence of fire. They desire God above all. They are athirst to taste for themselves the `piercing sweetness' of the love of Christ about Whom all the holy prophets did write and the psalmists did sing.

There is today no lack of Bible teachers to set forth correctly the principles of the doctrines of Christ, but too many of these seem satisfied to teach the fundamentals oft he faith year after year, strangely unaware that there is in their ministry no manifest Presence, nor anything unusual in their personal lives. They minister constantly to believers who feel within their breasts a longing which their teaching simply does not satisfy. I trust I speak in charity, but the lack in our pulpits is real. Milton's terrible sentence applies to our day as accurately as it did to his: `The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed.'

It is a solemn thing, and no small scandal in the Kingdom, to see God's children starving while actually seated at the Father's table. The truth of Wesley's words is established before our eyes: `Orthodoxy, or right opinion, is, at best, a very slender part of religion. Though right tempers cannot subsist without right opinions,yet right opinions may subsist without right tempers. There may be a right opinion of God without either love or one right temper toward Him.

Satan is proof of this.'Thanks to our splendid Bible societies and to other effective agencies for the dissemination of the Word, there are today many millions of people who hold `right opinions,' probably more than ever before in the history of the Church.Yet I wonder if there was ever a time when true spiritual worship was ever a time when true spiritual worship was at a lower ebb. To great sections of the Church the art of worship has been lost entirely, and in its place has come that strange and foreign thing called the `program.' This word has been borrowed from the stage and applied with sad wisdom to the type of public service which now passes for worship among us.

Sound Bible exposition is an imperative must in the Church of the living God. Without it no church can be a New Testament church in any strict meaning of that term. But exposition may be carried on in such way as to leave the hearers devoid of any true spiritual nourishment whatever. For it is not mere words that nourish the soul, but God Himself, and unless and until the hearers find God in personal experience, they are not the better for having heard the truth. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts.

This book is a modest attempt to aid God's hungry children so to find Him. Nothing here is new except in the sense that it is a discovery which my own heart has made of spiritual realities most delightful and wonderful to me. Others before me have gone much farther into these holy mysteries than I have done, but if my fire is not large it is yet real, and there may be those who can light their candle at its flame.

A. W. Tozer Chicago, Ill. June 16, 1948.

The Cult of Self Esteem

“You can tell a lot about an educational system by its vocabulary. When Calvinistic terms like grace and works are replaced by educantisms like self-esteem, you know the system’s in trouble. Or is even to think on grace and works now considered a violation of the separation of church and state? The mere mention of a religious idea in public has been known to make some of our more advanced thinkers break out in hives and litigation. As for those of us inclined to sneak a biblical allusion into our prose now and then, we need not fear; our ‘educated’ classes may no longer recognize it. The theory behind the Cult of Self-Esteem is simple: First get the cart, then put it before the horse. Just feel good about yourself and achievement will follow automatically. It would be too much to call this approach instant gratification; it’s really more like pre-gratification... Want to build real self-esteem, the kind that is the fruit of self-respect and not just an inadequate substitute for it? Expect, even insist on, competence. Don’t pretend it’s there when it isn’t. If that sounds too hard, that’s the catch with self-respect—it has to be earned. Self-esteem, on the other hand, costs little or nothing. And it’s worth just what you pay for it.” —Paul Greenberg

On Rights vs. Privileges

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

-- John Adams (Rights of the Colonists, 1772)

Jurisdiction of Government

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 33, 3 January 1788)

Reinstitution of the Draft: Why?

It should be no surprise to anyone who discerns the purpose for the United States' presence in Iraq that we are about to have the draft reinstituted by Congress. Do you think the President will veto it?

Charles Rangel (D-NY 15th District) introduced the Bill on January 10, 2007. (Did the media cover this?) If you ever had any doubt about the character of most of the members of both parties or you thought the Democrats would save us---be advised: there is no difference between the Dems and the Republicans.

Why would Charles Rangel want to be able to draft 18-42 (yes---read the link above) year olds for mandatory 2 year service in the armed forces? What do they know that they are not telling us folks? What is the plan?

Obviously, there is coming soon a need for bolstered numbers of cannon fodder---er----the armed forces and probably you know where they will be shipped to "serve" the interests of the United States: Hmmmmmm...let me think.....Palm Springs?

In my opinion, Charles Rangel ought to be ashamed of himself. Apparently, he is not the antagonist of the Republican party everyone thinks he is----and apparently has an interest to protect with presenting such legislation. Wonder what that could be?

Maybe Al Sharpton will protest outside Congressman Rangel's office----ya think? Better yet: Jesse Jackson.

You really begin to see that the pundits and politicians are all in this together at our expense and the expense of the lives of our children.

When will we say, "Enough is enough?"

FREEDOM DURING TIMES OF WAR: SECURITY, NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF SECURED LIBERTIES

By Timothy N. Baldwin

Please read this paper done by Chuck Baldwin's son while in Law School. I am still puzzled that everyone believes we are "at war" with terrorists in the Middle East or Iraq or now Iran. When did Congress declare war? I don't recall this act of Congress which is the only act which authorizes the Executive Branch to act in such a manner.

Would to God more attorneys and judges had this understanding of the subject of safety v. civil liberties. Read and enjoy a refreshing research paper contrary to the Republican and Democrat positions on the issue.

I often wonder if my efforts here are but a waste of time as there seems to be very little informed opinion on the issue especially in the Christian community. We just do not seem to be up to the task these days. Opinions please.

The Original Foreign Policy

The Original Foreign Policy
December 18, 2006
by Congressman Ron Paul
Texas Straight Talk

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
George Washington


Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience?

Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today.

The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine.

It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

The Unobtainable Great Writ

The link I have provided is an article published in the Harvard Law Review recently. It is the first article ever published in this law journal which was written by a pro se litigant. It is a revealing look at how the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has changed over the years and how in practical terms the Great Writ has been made unobtainable; what possibly was the last means of recourse against unlawful incarceration and conviction and of great importance today in the climate in which we find ourselves. (The writer of the article is serving a life sentence in the State of Florida as a result of a plea bargain agreement falsely foisted on him by his public defender. What price a truly remarkable article.)

I have included below the Congressional record from S3458-3460. The passage of the last major alteration of the writ, (and in my opinion the act which actually rendered the Great Writ non existant contrary to the Constitution and our antecedant rights), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is the item in discussion.

I find it immensely revealing that Senator Ted Kennedy resoundingly came out against the alteration and eviceration of the Great Writ. Senator Orrin Hatch led the charge for the legislation and admits to writing the majority of the bill. I am with Senator Kennedy on this one.

The majority of those who presently occupy the judge's chambers across the country, especially at the federal level, are the enforcers of this tragedy and do so regularly without conscience it appears. The Supremes are just as guilty. Interestingly, most of these folks are Republican appointees. I guess they follow their leader, Abraham Lincoln, with regard to the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

One would hope that this article would stimulate the reversal of the AEDPA and functionally restore the Great Writ to our arsenal of weapons against tyranny and the likes of courts which are effectively nothing more than Star Chamber reincarnate.

The Senate record of the discussion in this regard:

S3458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE April 17, 1996

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a year since the tragic bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and 10 months since the Senate passed a bill to give Federal law enforcement agencies the effective assistance they need to deal with these crimes. Unfortunately, the conference report before us is a far weaker bill than the measure we passed last year. All that is left now is the hollow shell of a terrorism bill, a mockery of the strong bipartisan legislation passed by the Senate.

Most of the meaningful antiterrorism measures passed by the Senate have been stripped out by the House, so that this bill is far less likely to deter terrorist crimes or aid in the apprehension of terrorists.

Using the phony label of antiterrorism, the bill achieves two reprehensible goals: it denies meaningful habeas corpus review to State death row inmates, and it makes it easier to turn away refugees and victims of political persecution from America’s shores.

Everyone knows what happened to this bill. It fell victim to the anti-Government assault of the National Rifle Association. After the Senate passed a tough, effective terrorism bill, the NRA stepped in and prevented House action for months. Then the NRA’s supporters in the House stripped the bill of key provisions to strengthen Federal law enforcement.

As a result of the NRA’s maneuvering, the conference report before us is completely inadequate to meet the needs of law enforcement. The Senate still has a chance to insist on a real terrorism bill, and not a sham bill. We should send this bill back to conference, and insist that the conferees restore the tough Senate provisions.

There are numerous glaring gaps in the conference report: It does not include the expanded wiretapping authority that the FBI has said is necessary to keep up with current telecommunications technology. It does not address the dangerous reality that bomb-making information is now freely disseminated on the Internet. It does not include a Senate-passed provision extending the statute of limitations for serious firearms offenses. It does not include a necessary exception to the posse comitatus laws so that military experts can provide technical assistance to law enforcement in terrorist attacks involving chemical or biological warfare.

Each of these measures was included in the Senate bill, but has been stripped out of the conference report at the insistence of the NRA. And while the bill is clearly deficient in these respects, it includes other provisions that are too extreme in limiting the rights and liberties of individuals: It eviscerates the ancient Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying death row inmates the opportunity to obtain even one meaningful Federal review of the constitutionality of their convictions.

It returns to the discredited cold war guilt-by-association policy of the McCarran-Walter law, excluding individuals from our shores based on mere membership in an organization. Current law already contains authority to exclude members of known terrorist organizations.

The far broader sweep of this bill is unnecessary and excessive. It places excessive restrictions on the ability of refugees to obtain asylum in the United States. This provision was never considered by the full Senate, and it ought to be debated on the immigration bill, not the terrorism legislation.

Mr. President, I point out here what has been happening. Asylum claims decline
57 percent as productivity doubles in 1995. What we have seen is the dramatic reduction in terms of the asylum claims. In 1994, there were 122,000; 60,000 completed.

In 1995, 53,000; 126,000 were completed. The Justice Department has a handle on this issue. It is doing it in a conscientious, fair, and disciplined way, and we ought to retain it and not be caught up with other facts and figures.

Every omnibus bill requires Members of Congress to weigh the good provisions against the bad ones. I voted for the Senate bill even though it included the objectionable limits on habeas corpus. But the balance has changed, now that the Senate bill has been seriously weakened. There is too little to place on the scale against the shameful trashing of the writ of habeas corpus and the Nation’s asylum system.

It is unfortunate that the unrelated and controversial subject of habeas corpus was injected into this bill in the first place. Proponents say that habeas corpus is relevant because the suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing are charged with a Federal capital offense. But that fact is no justification for changing the rules with regard to State prisoners.

The habeas corpus proposals do not strike a fair balance. The bill denies death row inmates a full opportunity to raise claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence. It will therefore increase the likelihood that innocent people will be executed. The proposal to limit inmates to one bite at the apple is sound in principle. But surely the interest in swift executions must yield to new evidence that an innocent person is about to be put to death. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote, ‘‘Swift justice demands more than just swiftness.’’

Also, the proposal would unwisely require Federal courts to defer to State courts on issues of Federal constitutional law. A Federal court could not grant a writ habeas corpus based on Federal constitutional claims, unless the State court’s judgment was ‘‘an unreasonable application of Federal law.’’

It is a serious mistake to require a Federal court to defer to the judgment of a State court on matters of Federal constitutional law. The notion that a Federal court should be prevented from correcting a constitutional error because it was a reasonable error is unacceptable, especially in a capital case.

Ever since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Federal courts have served as the great defenders of constitutional protections, and they should remain so.

The asylum provisions in this bill are equally misguided. The Senate-passed bill did not address this subject, because it is more appropriately dealt with as part of immigration reform. But the conferees adopted House-passed language that drastically limits the ability of refugees to claim asylum if they arrive without proper documents. This provision undermines the fundamental treaty obligations of the United States by subjecting legitimate refugees to persecution and even torture.

It is often impossible for asylum seekers fleeing persecution to obtain a valid passport or travel document before they leave. Even the effort to obtain a travel document from the same government that is the persecutor may result in further danger to the asylum seeker. People may die or may be tortured while waiting for the proper papers. Accepting this reality, the U.N. High Commission on Refugees has recognized that circumstances may compel a refugee to use fraudulent documents to escape persecution. This fact has long been recognized under international law. The United States has international obligations to protect refugees and asylum seekers who use fraudulent documents to escape persecution abroad. Article 31 of the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees imposes an obligation on the United States not to penalize refugees and asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution, and who present fraudulent documents or no documents at all.

Under current practice, when asylum seekers arrive in the United States without valid travel documents or a passport, they are placed in detention. Generally, they are released from detention only if an asylum prescreening officer believes they have a sound case. That is the dramatic change in the way the Justice Department is considering the asylum seekers at the present time and how they were considered a number of months ago. Otherwise, they must pursue their asylum claim while in detention.

The pending bill significantly changes this process. It gives the prescreening officer the authority to deport an asylum seeker who enters with false or no documents. The office can deport the asylum seeker without a full hearing. An immigration judge never sees the case. In addition, the asylum seeker has no access to the assistance of counsel or even an interpreter. As we consider this unprecedented proposal, we should remind ourselves of Raoul Wallenberg, the hero who saved countless lives during the Holocaust by

April 17, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3459

issuing false travel documents so that Jews could escape Hitler’s persecution. If this bill had been law in 1946, those Jews could have been returned to Europe without so much as a hearing. Finally, the bill is flawed because it excludes foreigners from our shores based on mere membership in a disfavored organization. In the days of the cold war, distinguished writers, professors, and others were excluded from the United States based on their mere membership in a Communist organization.

Finally in 1990, we repealed the notorious McCarran-Walter law and set exclusion criteria based on individual actions, not their words. This bill is a giant step backward. It explicitly sets excessive exclusion criteria based on membership in an organization, even though it would be grossly unfair to assume that all or even most members of the organization are terrorists. Current law already gives broad authority to exclude members of terrorist organizations in such cases, and the blunderbuss provision in this bill is unneeded. If applied to American citizens, it would be a violation of the first amendment.

The harm caused by the habeas corpus, asylum, and exclusion provisions of this bill is severe, and the good accomplished by the antiterrorism sections of the bill is minor. I urge the Senate to send this defective bill back to conference with instructions to do the job right—and produce a real antiterrorism bill that gives law enforcement the tools it needs to get the job done.

I thank the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee for letting me address the Senate on this issue.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished colleague and friend, and he would like to restore the Senate bill. We just cannot do that. I was very proud of that Senate bill. I wrote most of it and, frankly, I think our colleagues worked together to come up with a good bill. When it went to the House, the House enacted a bill which really was much less than the Senate bill. We have gone to conference and have brought most all of the Senate bill back.

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says that this bill we have today is a hollow shell. Now, come on. Let me just go through some highlights of this bill.

We have most everything back, and the things we do not have back, we can probably, in the real world, solve anyway, under current existing law. I have to say, yes, I would prefer the original Senate bill, but let me give you one illustration.

In the fundraising provisions, I might add that the Antidefamation League, and others of similar mind—and I am of similar mind—believe that our fundraising language is far superior in this bill than it was in the Senate bill. I know it is far superior.

We were able to work that out with our colleagues in the House. That alone is a reason for preferring this bill over the Senate bill, plus the added promise that I have made here that I will try to work out these wiretap and other issues, or at least the wiretap issues, in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But just look at the highlights of this antiterrorism bill. Capital punishment reform, death penalty reform, something that has been needed for years, decades. It is being abused all over the country. There are better than 3,000 people who have been living on death row for years with the sentences never carried out, the victims going through the pain every time they turn around. This will solve that problem while still protecting their constitutional rights and every right of appeal that they really should have. It is written well.

The international terrorism prohibitions, prohibitions on international terrorist fundraising. As I have said, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and a whole raft of others that are concerned in this area, like the language in this bill much better than the languagein the Senate bill.

This subtitle adds to Federal law prohibitions which provide material support to, or raise funds for, foreign organizations designated by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to be terrorist organizations.

We have the Terrorist and Criminal Alien Removal and Exclusion Act in this bill. We remove alien terrorists, and we provide very good language that was very much the same as the Senate language. We have the exclusion of members or representatives of terrorist organizations, the alien terrorists exclusion, if you will. This permits, as a new legal basis for alien exclusion, the denial of entry into the United States of any person who is a representative or member of a designated terrorist organization.

We have a whole title on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons restrictions. These are not picayune provisions. This is big-time stuff. This is something this country has needed for years and the whole world needs. We have it in this bill.

We have the expansion of scope and jurisdictional bases of nuclear materials prohibitions and a report to Congress on thefts of explosive materials from armories. We require the Attorney General, together with the Secretary of Defense, to undertake a study of the number of thefts of firearms, explosives, and other terrorist-type materials from military arsenals. We will make them get on these things.

We have biological weapons restrictions, enhanced penalties, and control of biological agents. We have chemical weapons restrictions, chemical weapons, and biological weapons of mass destruction.

We provide for a study of the facility for training and the evaluation of personnel who respond to the use of chemical or biological weapons in urban or suburban areas.

We have the implementation of the Plastic Explosives Convention in here.

We have the marking of plastic explosives.

We have studies on the marking of other explosives and putting taggants on them.

We have made a whole bunch of modifications in criminal law to counterterrorism, increased penalties for conspiracies involving explosives.

All this talk about explosives. We provide language in here that will help to solve those problems. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, we have language on that. We have criminal procedure changes in here that would make a real difference with regard to certain terrorism offenses overseas, the clarification of maritime violence jurisdiction, increased and alternate conspiracy penalties for terrorism offenses, clarification of Federal jurisdiction over bomb threats. The expansion and modification of weapons of mass destruction statute is in here, the addition of terrorism offenses to the money laundering statute.

We have the protection of Federal employees in here mainly because it is needed now in this day and age with some of the vicious people we have to put up with in our society. We have the protection of current and former officials in here, officers, employees of the United States.

We have the death penalty as an aggravating factor. We solve that and add multiple killings to the list of aggravating factors in the imposition of the death penalty. We have detention hearing language in here and directions to the sentencing commission.

I have to say, we have a whole raft of other things that I do not have time to mention. Look, it is time to pass this terrorism bill. It is time to let the people in Oklahoma City know we mean business here.

Is the time expired on both sides? On behalf of the majority leader and I, I move that we table the Kennedy, amendment and ask for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do we have motions to table on both of these amendments? And will they be back to back?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is only one amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts did not offer an amendment.

Mr. HATCH. He did not. I am happy to then proceed with the vote on the Biden amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to recommit.

S3460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE April 17, 1996

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. MACK] is necessarily
absent

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

YEAS—56
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D’Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS—43
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING—1
Mack

The motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed to.

Military Commissions Act: A Precursor To Tyranny?

(I guess my concerns over the Military Commisions Act are shared by a few others...---Editor)

by Chuck Baldwin
December 5, 2006

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas recently discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the interview, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."

Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."

Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"

Couple the implementation of the Military Commissions Act with the already-passed USA Patriot Act and all the legalities necessary to completely eviscerate America's constitutionally-protected liberties are in place. Think of it. Without firing a shot or dropping a bomb, President George W. Bush has done more to strip the American people of their liberties than all the world's despots and dictators combined!

Consider further the recent statements of former house speaker Newt Gingrich. According to the (Manchester, NH) Union Leader, "Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday [Monday, Nov. 27] in Manchester said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

"Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a 'different set of rules' may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message."

Of course, Mr. Gingrich did not say how he plans to reduce people's free speech rights. Neither did he say a word about the fact that our greatest potential for terrorism is coming in the form of an invasion of illegal aliens across our southern border, and that it has been the words and policies of one George W. Bush that have mostly contributed to this threat.

Will someone please tell me how expunging the free speech of the American people is going to make the United States safer? And, pray tell, why are our brave troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, ostensibly to "promote democracy," if the same political leaders who sent them to the Middle East are working to shrink democracy here at home?

Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, rights and freedoms that have been lost to you include your right to an attorney, your right to know the charges being levied against you, the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, the right to not be subjected to torture, the right to not have your home and personal items searched and seized without warrant, the right to not have your personal conversations (including letters and email) intercepted without court order, and the right to not incriminate yourself, just to name a few. And now we learn that our government has authorized and is planning to build "concentration camp facilities."

Furthermore, just because you or I have not yet been personally subjected to this tyranny, does not mean that we won't be! The seeds are already planted; the die is already cast. The time to act is not when you are being carted off to an "undisclosed location." By then, it is too late.

Thank God for Congressman Ron Paul. If it weren't for him, there would be practically no one on Capitol Hill willing to sound the alarm for the American people. I wish someone could convince him to run for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. The GOP would never support his candidacy for president, but the CP would welcome him with open arms. And, given the American people's frustration with both major parties, a serious third party challenge is very possible in 2008.

In the meantime, the power establishment in Washington, D.C., continues to undermine our Constitution and fritter away our freedoms.

© Chuck Baldwin

Words of Wisdom

"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."

-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)

Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (521)

I think these words are most appropriate with the passage into law of the Military Commissions Act on October 17, 2006. This law consolidates powers in the executive branch that literally exceed the powers of the original Star Chamber before it. Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Torture Master are all contained in this hideous masquerade of lawful law; all in the name of "protecting us" from the terrorists without...Every elected official that voted for or signed this law should be bounced as far out of Washington as possible.Editor

Contra Imperium: The Christian Case Against American Imperialism and the Security/Police State

Featured article from the November/December 2006 issue of FFAOL
Tom Rose
November/December 2006

©Tom Rose, 2006

A deep division is occurring in America. It is dividing family members and friends into opposing ideological camps. The ideological split between previously gracious and forbearing individuals is caused by two aspects of growing statism:

First, America’s military expansion overseas—i.e., imperial hegemony.

Second, the domestic growth of what is known as a security/police state—i.e., the domestic program of government rulers to induce among the populace a ready acceptance of the idea of foreign imperialism through the generation of mass fear coupled with the forceful suppression of political dissent.

In one camp are those who claim the Bush Administration’s preemptive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (and the proposed invasions of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran) are unconstitutional, unwise, unnecessary, and do nothing but inflame Islamic hatred of America. Some in this camp believe that President Bush does not possess true authority. They believe that the real power brokers are the war-mongering neoconservatives who, in turn, answer to the more shadowy rulers who seek to meld our American Republic into the international “New World Order.” As you might have heard, recent surveys reveal that 36 percent of the American population now believe that the U.S. government had some hand in the “terrorist” attacks of 9/11—that it was an “inside job.” According to this growing view, these attacks were allegedly contrived to justify the two-pronged policy of preemptive foreign war and the establishment of a domestic security/police state.

Included in the allegations of the first camp is that the present administration is being compromised by gross sexual immorality, as in the case of James Guckert (a.k.a. “Jeff Gannon”), the homosexual pornographer who advertises himself as a male prostitute and who had ready access to the White House through a White House press pass. More recent is the exposure of pedophiles in Congress, like ex-Florida Congressman Mark Foley, who quickly resigned when the fact of his illicit emails to young male congressional pages was made public. Such moral indiscretions demonstrate a clear weakness in political leadership during a time of war and national security.

The opposing camp argues, “No way!” They state that President Bush had an “experience” and is a “born-again” Christian. They relate that Bush’s political staff, during his first presidential campaign, told how Bush allegedly led a young teenager to Christ. Therefore, the president would not engage in any under-the-table maneuvers for political reasons. They argue that, instead of opposing President Bush’s preemptive attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and his regime-change occupation of these countries, Americans should support him and the patriotic troops who are protecting America against “Islamic terrorism.” And if future intelligence indicates that Iran is achieving nuclear capability, then America and her allies should uphold the president in his efforts “to protect our country” against this nuclear threat from radical Islamic leaders.

Perhaps the best way to shed light on this divisive subject is first to consider foreign imperialism and domestic statism in ancient history, and second, Great Britain, the greatest imperial nation of all times.

We will then consider the United States of America to see how our own country gradually became, though unrecognized by most Americans, a full-fledged imperial state overseas and a corresponding security/police state domestically.

Finally, we will evaluate the double-sided problem of foreign imperialism and domestic statism from a Biblical perspective.

The issue of building empires, either domestic or foreign, is completely contrary to God’s Word. In man’s first world-empire-building attempt, the Tower of Babel, God confused the language and dispersed the people (Gen. 11:1–9). God’s clear plan for civil government is for the establishment of small, democratic-republic civil units, not large, unitary dictator-type units (Exod. 18:13–26). To be Biblical, America should abhor foreign possessions and international entanglements like the United Nations, NAFTA, etc.

Imperialism in Ancient History

A survey of ancient civilizations—as cited by the Preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes—shows “there is no new thing under the sun” (1:9). Accordingly, it is not surprising to discover that civil rulers, from the earliest kingdoms to those of the present time, all wielded hegemonic power to expand their borders by land or sea. Generally, the motive to attack other nations was to seize their wealth and to gain control of their natural resources, trade routes, or the seas.

Sometimes the motivation to make war on other nations was simply to eliminate them as competitors in trade. This was the case in Rome’s long-continued attacks on Carthage during three Punic Wars (264–146 B.C.). “Carthago delenda est!” (“Carthage must be destroyed!”) was the cry on Rome’s senate floor by those who stood to benefit from war. A similar motivation was behind Britain’s assaults against Germany leading to World War I because the “British Crown” feared competition from Germany’s rapidly expanding industrial capability.

What we today call “special interests” were usually behind inciting a pro-war attitude among the public. It was so in early history, and it is so today. Even in early history, it was essential for empire builders to instill in the common people a willingness to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children as “cannon fodder” to expand their country’s imperialistic hegemony.

Here is a summary of key events of imperialistic hegemony in ancient history:
The Hyksos

Around 1720 B.C., the Hyksos, a Semitic people from Palestine, invaded the Delta area of Egypt and made all of Egypt tributary. The irresistible power of the Hyksos came from their temporary monopoly of two new weapons of war: the powerful composite bow of wood and horn and the much-feared horse-drawn chariot, which had sharp swords extending from the hubs of the wheels to slice up opposing foot soldiers. These awful war chariots generated great fear among the enemy.

It was during this pro-Semitic rule of the Hyksos in Egypt that Jacob and his family migrated to Egypt during Joseph’s reign as administrator. After some time, the Egyptians were able to expel the Hyksos because they adopted the new weapons that were introduced by the Hyksos invaders.
The Hittites

About 1450 B.C., the Hittites established themselves in eastern Asia Minor. They had developed an iron metallurgy that gave them improved weapons. Their horse-drawn chariots (inherited from the Hyksos) and iron-tipped spears and swords provided a strong military advantage and enabled them to expand their borders and conquer the people of central Asia Minor. The Hittite Empire included Syria, which had been lost to them by Egypt. Once again, superior military technology and the fear it generated among the enemy was the key to imperial expansion.
The Kingdom of Solomon

Shortly after 1200 B.C., an invasion of Indo-European peoples destroyed the Hittite Empire. The chief importance of the Hittites was the culture they passed on to the Greeks (who settled along the Aegean coast of Asia Minor) and the knowledge of iron metallurgy, which later gave the Philistines military dominance over the Israelites during the time of King Saul (1095–1055 B.C.).

Liberation of the area of Palestine from the hegemony of competing empires then allowed the Old Testament Israelites to grow and expand under the reigns of Kings Saul, David, and Solomon.

Solomon established an oriental-type, military-based empire similar to others in the Mideast. He maintained a formidable military force of 40,000 stalls of horses for chariots and 12,000 horsemen (1 Kings 4:20–28). His harem numbered 700 wives and 300 concubines. Burdensome expenditures and impressed labor were used to erect a grandiose temple and house for Solomon (1 Kings 6 & 7).

Under Solomon’s rule, the democratic republic of the Hebrews was turned into an autocratic empire (“like other nations”), which grew fat on wealth and tribute wrested from foreign nations. This was a typical growth-of-empire process that would be followed by other empires in the future. Gold and riches flowed into Solomon’s empire, but the internal cost to ordinary citizens was heavy taxation and the loss of individual freedom.

Eventually, burdensome taxes motivated the Hebrew people to rebel during the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:16). This was a Biblical/historical instance of the principle of governmental interposition through which God raises up an intermediate magistrate to rally the people against rulers who have turned tyrannical.

Later Empires

The Assyrians, a Semitic people from the upper Tigris, subdued Babylon in 721 B.C. and gained control of the Fertile Crescent (which extends northward from where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers pour into the Persian Gulf, westward to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and southward to Palestine).

The offensive strategy of the Assyrian Empire in foreign conquests is important to note because similar steps were used both by earlier and subsequent empires:

1. The use of superior war-making technology to overwhelm the enemy; in the case of the Assyrians: the much-feared military chariots, mounted cavalry, and sophisticated siege engines.
2. A policy of generating terror among the peoples they attacked.
3. A very efficient system of political administration.
4. Destruction of the national
unity of conquered peoples by mass deportations.
5. Strong support of the empire’s domestic commercial classes who would profit from trading over large areas that were united by political and economic stability.

Expansion of the Assyrian Empire was quite successful, but, around 650 B.C. the ethnic population of Assyria had been so decimated by continued wars that the rulers had to depend on hired mercenary troops and levies from the nations they conquered. This weakened the empire and enabled Egypt to regain its independence. Also the Medes, an Indo-European people who had established themselves on the Iranian plateau about 1000 B.C., east of Assyria, refused further tribute. By 625 B.C. the Chaldeans, who had gradually filtered into Babylonia, revolted; and by 612 B.C. the Chaldeans and Medes joined to destroy Nineveh, the capital. Thus, we see that empires are built through force and by inciting fear among the enemy, but are themselves eventually destroyed by force.

The Roman Empire was notorious for how members of its Senate conspired to expand Roman hegemony for their own personal benefit—money and power—to the eventual ruin of the empire, which reached its zenith about A.D. 180. The Roman soldiers, who wielded the notorious short sword, generated great fear and hate among the enemy by leaving battlefields strewn with decapitated heads, and arms and legs. Today, the same tactic is used via mass cluster bombing and the use of depleted uranium (which causes deplorable birth malformations among the nations under attack).

Octavian Augustus (27 B.C.) attempted to restore the old Roman virtues of self-reliance, personal integrity, discipline, and family cohesion; but the aristocracy, in its moral decadence, was generally unconcerned about the drift of their country (like our modern Congress?). In the cities, unemployed mobs, long degraded by government-provided free bread and circuses (similar to our modern welfare payments and TV?) had lost interest in hard work. Later, a steady debauching of Rome’s currency was a telltale sign of its moral, political, and economic corruption. (A comparable decline in purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has occurred since creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913!)

Earlier empires (the Persian and that of Greece), and later empires (Byzantium, the Mongol and Ottoman, and those in India and China), all rose through the use of power and fear, and then declined. Generally the pertinent facts are similar: the lust for land, power, and riches at the expense of weaker nations; the greedy self-interests of those who benefit financially from imperial expansion; and the growth domestically of freedom-destroying statism.

The British Empire

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Dutch all expanded their hegemony internationally. Each used the rapidly developing technology of gunpowder (cannons and small arms) to conquer and enslave less-advanced nations and to dominate their cultures.

Britain’s rise to become the preeminent world empire rested on the leading technology she had in arms manufacture and shipbuilding. This made her able to dominate less-advanced countries on both land and sea, thereby expanding her hegemony all over the world. Her boast was “the sun never sets” on her empire.

At home the common people were mentally conditioned, at great personal loss of life and limb, to serve as recruits in the imperial army and navy. This was accomplished through government propaganda and the willing participation of a compliant press that was largely controlled by commercial and financial special interest groups represented in Parliament. In this, note the similarity to the Senate of the Roman Empire. Blood flowed freely wherever Britain’s hegemony was extended (India, China, Africa, and elsewhere); immense riches flowed into the coffers of the Crown and members of the ruling elite.

Queen Elizabeth had incorporated the English East India Company in 1600. This created a monopoly of trade, producing vast wealth for her and other stockholders.

History textbooks downplay two main sources of the Queen’s vast wealth (accumulated tax-free) and of the wealth of other empire elites in Britain and Europe:

1. The opium trade. Tea and spices could not possibly generate the vast income needed to station British soldiers at the Khyber Pass, only one of many places where imperial troops were posted.
2. The African slave trade. Britain joined it in 1503, first to supply cheap labor to her sugar plantations in the West Indies, then later (in the 1600s and1700s) to supply cheap labor to the plantation owners in Colonial America.

Trade in opium and slaves provided the foundation for many family fortunes now enjoyed by descendants of the British and European royalty, as well as for elite families of New England in America today—though much effort is made to conceal these dark facts of history.

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 to provide the king with funds to pay for foreign wars. The Bank’s charter allowed it to charge 8 percent on monies loaned to the government and gave the Bank a monopoly for issuing credit-based banknotes on which it could collect interest. Credit financing made it easier to fund expansion of the empire overseas. The Bank is still located in “the City” of London, an independent entity not under the British government.

British imperialism reached its zenith after World War I when Palestine, Iraq, and large parts of Africa were designated as her “protectorates” by the League of Nations, which Britain greatly influenced. This allowed Britain to gain effective control of the rich oil reserves of Arab countries. This set the stage for the volatile situation we see in the Mideast today. Britain also gained effective control of vast mineral reserves and other riches in Africa.

After World War II, the extensive British Empire quickly crumbled, going the way of all empires, as freedom-minded peoples demanded self-determination.
America’s Path to Empire

In 1896 the U.S. Congress passed a resolution to intervene in a rebellion of Cubans against Spain, but President Grover Cleveland, an anti-imperialist, refused to get the U.S. involved. When pressured, he declared that if Congress declared war, he would not, as commander-in-chief, issue the necessary order to mobilize the army. Thus, Cleveland courageously opposed public opinion, which was being stirred up by special interests who had commercial ties to Cuba. Earlier, in 1893, Cleveland, against strong public opinion, had stopped the annexation of Hawaii, which was being engineered by commercial interests in Hawaii who had wrongly deposed Queen Liliuokalani.

In contrast, when the U.S. battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898, President William McKinley, who did not want hostilities, reluctantly yielded to public pressure stirred up by special interests and a cooperative press. So America declared war against Spain, which ceded Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States, and thereby gained effective control of Cuba. This was America’s great step toward building a foreign empire.

One immediate effect of our venture into empire building was the rebellion of our prior allies in the war, the Philippine patriots, who demanded self-determination. The resulting Philippine resistance was overcome by American military strength, but it took three years and the deployment of 60,000 American troops to put down the rebellion.

In subsequent years, America’s foreign entanglements drew us into a long series of foreign wars, lasting more than a century. In each instance, there is sufficient evidence suggesting U.S. government deception of the American people in order to create support for war.

America’s engagement in World War I came after the sinking of the Lusitania, which the Germans accused the British of causing in order to bring the U.S. into the war. Much has also been written about FDR’s inducing the Japanese to attack the naval ships at Pearl Harbor. Also, Truman is alleged to have tricked North Korea into attacking South Korea, thus launching an unconstitutional war for America. And it is now a documented fact that LBJ lied to the American public about the Gulf of Tonkin incident—the alleged event that caused an immediate escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

In the 1991 war “Desert Storm,” Iraq invaded Kuwait after being told that the U.S. “had no interest” in Iraq’s territorial dispute with Kuwait. It is also now well established that many of the atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated by Iraqi forces in Kuwait are fraudulent. These false allegations were used to stir up a pro-war attitude among the American public.

And, finally, the preemptive attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were based upon faulty intelligence regarding so-called “weapons of mass destruction” and the very questionable events of September 11, 2001. Even today, as Bob Woodward recently revealed in his book State of Denial, the truth about the escalating violence in Iraq is being hid from Americans.

In each of these wars, the net result has been a sharply divided public; a sad waste of young lives; the centralization of more government power in Washington, D.C., especially in the hands of the executive branch (a shocking example is Congress’ recent passage in early October of the “Detainee Bill,” which unconstitutionally gives President Bush sole power to determine who is a “terrorist combatant”—including even American citizens!—and which, also unconstitutionally, provides President Bush retroactively with protection against being accused of the torture of prisoners under the Geneva Convention); tremendous increases in taxation and government regulation; persistent monetary inflation, which causes a steady depreciation in the purchasing value of the U.S. dollar; and a continued loss of individual freedom as citizens are persuaded by political leaders to surrender their God-ordained, self-responsibilities to the government. In short, a caretaker security/police state has developed in America as an inescapable and corresponding part of America’s evolvement into an empire state internationally.

During each war, freedom of the people has suffered, never to be wholly restored, and taxes and government control of the population have continually increased.

Evidences ...

Here are some clear evidences of the growth of American imperialism abroad and the accompanying security/police state domestically:

Burdensome taxes: When civil governments exceed their role in society—their lawless interventions into the spheres of the home, the church, business, and other private associations—their statist programs must be paid for. To wrest needed monies from citizens, the IRS has been set up as an “inquisitor” that has power to “undress people financially” every year, and even to make armed raids to confiscate property on claims of nonpayment. Today the average American must work for over six months each year to pay for federal, state, and local taxes. Compare this with God’s modest tithe of only 10 percent from His people.

Monetary inflation: When citizens start complaining about high taxes, civil rulers then turn to the easier route of a hidden tax called monetary inflation, which gradually siphons off the purchasing power of people’s money. Since the Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913, the value of the dollar has steadily plummeted to less than 2 percent! Most of this insidious debauchment was caused by our involvement in foreign wars that we had no valid reason to enter, plus numerous unconstitutional government programs that forcefully transfer wealth from the pockets of some citizens to the pockets of others. Frederic Bastiat called this process “legalized theft.”

The “war on drugs”: President Richard Nixon initiated the war on drugs in 1971.

During WWII, the OSS (the Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA) had to pay Malaysian warriors with heroin because they would not work for money, not even for gold. Thus, the OSS operatives made connection with the international drug cartel that operates through the “Golden Triangle” in Asia. Eventually, drugs literally started flowing into America from the poppy fields of Pakistan and Afghanistan in Asia and from Columbia in South America.

To counter the incoming flood of drugs, the federal government deceitfully started the war on drugs, but, of course, the flood continued. This so-called “war,” through the RICO law, resulted in armed SWAT-team raids all across America and the confiscation of billions of dollars of private property owned by innocent people. Many small operators in the drug scene were arrested, but no arrests of the major kingpins. Today, most local police departments have been effectively “federalized” by the FBI, and about 89 percent of local police departments now have strongly armed paramilitary units whose main job is to break into homes unannounced on drug searches. Almost 500,000 American citizens are now in prison on drug charges. In 1980 the number imprisoned was 50,000.

Secrecy in government operations: Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens to discover what politicians and government bureaucrats are doing.

In spite of the Freedom of Information Act, citizen inquiry is often “stonewalled” on the alleged claim that “this is a national security issue”; as if so-called national security issues were more crucial than protecting citizens’ constitutionally protected freedoms. Thus, the domestic web of freedom-destroying legislation and totalitarian government programs, as well as the so-called “black flag operations” of covert U.S. agencies overseas (and in our own country also), continue to undermine the Constitution. For instance, the Bush administration has been quietly advancing a massive “NAFTA Super Highway” that will run along Interstate 35 from the border of Mexico in Texas to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minnesota. This empire-building scheme will be an accomplished fact, with no constitutional approval, before most Americans become aware of it.

Fear mongering: Throughout history, totalitarian-minded civil rulers have created a domestic climate of fear among the general population to make them more readily accept Orwellian-type regulations and control. Psychological control is much more efficient than using guns. “Foreign enemies” are thus the bogeymen whom the people are brought to fear.

In the modern case of America, it is so-called “Islamic terrorists” that have replaced the previous menace of communism.

A good example of fear mongering is the police-state atmosphere of fear currently surrounding American airports, supposedly to stop “terrorist” hijacking. Most Americans have “bought into” this specious tactic, and they, like sheep being led to slaughter, have been conditioned to continue exposing themselves to the most degrading forms of personal inspection when boarding planes—a clear undermining of the Fourth Amendment.

New repressive federal agencies: As a result of the psychological fear mongering about 9/11, Congress passed the constitutional-subverting “Patriot Acts” and created the KGB-type, police-state agency called “Homeland Security” (note the Orwellian language). This agency has been given the unconstitutional authority to use outright force to destroy Americans’ liberty at the whim of the president. Recently, Homeland Security notified banks that whenever banks are so notified by Homeland Security, bank customers would not be allowed to open their safe-deposit boxes unless a Homeland Security agent was present.

More than 400 governmental units throughout America (states, cities, and counties) have publicly gone on record as opposing the so-called “Patriot Act.” Three cheers! These are acts of governmental interposition.

Every statement above is true, and the list could go on and on; but the important question is, What are we to do?
What Direction Does God Give?

Solutions to the above-mentioned problems are readily found by searching Scripture because God’s Word is designed to guide mankind in how to live in a sinful world populated by not only sinful citizens, but especially by sinful and tyrannically oriented civil rulers (1 Sam. 8).

We are to think God’s thoughts (2 Cor. 10:3–5) in every aspect of our lives and especially in building our social institutions (family, church, businesses and other voluntary organizations, and civil government). We are created in God’s very image and likeness; therefore, we have a God-given right to be free, and we have the responsibility to maintain our freedom so that we can stand self-responsible before God, our Creator and Lord (Gen. 1:26–28; Exod. 8:1).

What we must do is threefold: think Biblically, think economically, and think constitutionally. Note the sequence: both our economic world and our political world must be made to conform to God’s Word.

These United States of America have grown beyond the Biblical pattern. One way of restoring our Constitutional Republic and eliminating the unitary aspect of our national government is to eliminate the Seventeenth Amendment thereby reinstituting the election of senators by state legislatures; and also eliminate the income tax and replace it with a head tax paid to the states in conjunction with requisitions requested by the national government, as we had under the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry, a wonderful patriot and believer in decentralized government, said, “I love those requisitions!” because they limited the power of the central government.

Today, our problem is too-big government, too far from home, and no effective way to choke off funds going to the national government. Eliminating the Seventeenth Amendment and restoring the “requisitions” that Patrick Henry so loved would accomplish this. Radical? Yes! But radical in the good sense in that the solution cuts to the very core of the problem.

To bring it about, Americans must ask, “What is the proper role of civil government in society according to the Bible?” This is the second-most important question in life because the answer will determine whether we live in freedom and self-responsibility to God during this life or as serfs to a centralized, autocratic government.

When it comes to burdensome taxes, the solution is clear: God’s gracious tithe, which is paid voluntarily, is limited to only 10 percent, for which God promises to bestow His blessings (Mal. 3:10). Any tax levy near 10 percent approaches tyranny, and any levy above that certainly is tyrannical.

Once again, we must ask, “What is the proper Biblical role of civil government in society?” We find the answer in Romans 13:3–4. Civil government is not designed by God to be a transfer agent to take money from one citizen and transfer it to another citizen (legalized theft). Rather, it is to be a negative force in society, not a regulator of economic activity, but simply a punisher of wrongdoers and lawbreakers.

Monetary inflation is nothing more than a form of insidious taxation that makes it easier for civil rulers to engage in the “legalized theft” process of wresting money from some citizens and giving it to others who happen to be favored by the rulers. Money creation by the Federal Reserve to fund government deficits should be abandoned because it is credit-created debt. Also, our system of fractional banking should be put on a 100-percent-reserve basis to stop banks from creating credit money when extending loans. Savings banks and savings and loan associations worked like this successfully for many, many years. This would end the alleged need for a central bank to supply a “flexible” monetary system and to serve as an alleged “lender of last resort.”

Governmental Interposition

Government by the people cannot function properly unless they know what is going on behind the scenes and understand the Constitution. If the false screen of “national security” continues as it is, our country is doomed to succumb to the security/police state. We live in a very perilous time; and the peril does not exist outside of our country in a fictional cave inhabited by an alleged freedom-hating, Islamic member of al-Qaeda. Our real peril exists in high places inside our own country. We ignore this fact at our peril and at the risk of what kind of country our children and grandchildren will be destined to live in.

What is God’s solution for unseating ungodly rulers who turn tyrannical and for replacing them with rulers of His choice? When King Rehoboam refused the people’s petition, it was, “[T]o your tents, O Israel”!

The principle in God’s solution to tyranny (unconstitutional rule) is called governmental interposition, and it can be done peacefully.

God has the power to turn rulers’ hearts (Prov. 21:1). First, let us pray for this. But also, let us remember that there are many imprecatory prayers in the Bible. They, too, are for our use. God’s final option is the Biblical principle of governmental interposition, whose time, I believe, has come. May God’s will be done to the salvation of America and to the glory of His Kingdom!

Tom is retired professor of economics, Grove City College, Pennsylvania. He is author of seven books and hundreds of articles dealing with economic and political issues. His articles have regularly appeared in The Christian Statesman, published by the National Reform Association, Pittsburgh, PA; and in many other publications. He and his wife, Ruth, raise registered Barzona cattle on a farm near Mercer, PA, where they also write and publish economic textbooks for use by Christian colleges, high schools and home educators. Rose’s latest books are: Free Enterprise Economics in America and God, Gold and Civil Government.