Chuck Baldwin on the Virginia Gun Grab

Lexington And Concord Redux In Virginia

https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3970/Lexington-And-Concord-Redux-In-Virginia.aspx

Tragically, most Americans do not have any idea what it was that actually triggered America’s War for Independence. The primary reason was not “taxation without representation,” or taxes of any kind, for that matter. And it was certainly not because our Founding Fathers were a bunch of anti-government extremists or demon-possessed puppets of the Illuminati.

“Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Laws Are Even Worse Than You Think

By Chuck Baldwin
August 22, 2019

As I said in this column last week, Republicans Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are joining forces with liberal Democrats to soon enact “red flag” gun confiscation laws. I also reported on the push for the enactment of other gun control measures such as universal background checks being promoted on Capitol Hill and by the White House here.

Yes, Donald Trump is calling for “red flag” gun confiscation laws and universal background checks. Trump said, “I have an appetite for background checks. We’re going to be doing background checks. We’re going to be filling in . . . the loopholes.”

I urge readers to watch my 8-minute video exposing Donald Trump’s betrayal of his promise to protect the 2nd Amendment and share it with as many of your friends as you can. If we don’t convince our U.S. senators to reject these egregious gun control measures, THEY WILL BE PASSED, AND TRUMP WILL SIGN THEM INTO LAW. We have about two or three weeks to convince our senators to reject these new gun control laws. That’s it.

Please watch the video and share it with everyone you can.

If law-abiding gun owners don’t call their U.S. senators en masse, and I mean posthaste, you are very likely to wake up one morning around 4am to the sound of a SWAT team breaking down your door to confiscate your guns, prepared to kill you or any member of your family who resists. Why? Perhaps because a gun-hating neighbor hates you having guns or a relative doesn’t like you and is looking for any way to “teach you a lesson” or your ex-spouse is looking for any way to “get even” with you or an anti-gun cop with a grudge wants to send a political message or a family doctor or school teacher overheard one of your children talk about how many guns daddy has and became alarmed, etc., ad infinitum.

Plus, the FBI has just recently stated that if you believe in “conspiracy theories,” you are a “domestic terrorist threat.” That statement is from an FBI intelligence bulletin from the bureau’s Phoenix field office, dated May 30, 2019. That FBI designation alone could very easily precipitate a “red flag” gun confiscation order being rendered against you.

Read the entire article here: 

https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3911/Red-Flag-Gun-Confiscation-Laws-Are-Even-Worse-Than-You-Think.aspx

Please give us your comments on this article.

Now It’s William Barr: When Will Christians And Conservatives Stop Making Excuses For Donald Trump?

By Chuck Baldwin
January 24, 2019

Okay, we all know how awful Hillary Clinton is. We all know that Donald Trump said all the right things (well, many of the right things) on the campaign trail. We all know—at least believed—that Trump was not an establishment insider. We all know that Trump promised to “drain the swamp,” dramatically reduce America’s out-of-control deficit spending, protect the Second Amendment, get America out of its endless foreign wars, terminate taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, overturn Roe v Wade and build a wall on our southern border—that Mexico would pay for—in order to stop the flow of illegal immigration into America.

Now, after two full years of a Donald Trump administration in which he enjoyed both houses of Congress being held by fellow Republicans, we all know (and if we don’t, it’s because we don’t WANT to know) that none of the above has happened. Yet, Christians and conservatives by the millions continue to make excuses for this faker.

First, a brief comment about the border wall: All of the drama regarding a partial government shutdown and incessant public theater by actors from both political parties is quite nauseating. Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and the White House for two years. Why wasn’t money appropriated for the wall then? Why was there no government shutdown over the lack of funding for the border wall then? Why wait until Democrats take over the House to shut down (partially) the federal government and threaten to declare a State of National Emergency?

Forgive me, but this stinks to high heaven. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors. All of the high profile theatrics over the border wall is the biggest distraction to envelop our country in quite a spell. While everyone is fighting over the wall, some very serious attacks against our liberties are being waged almost without notice. And all of the hullabaloo over the wall is completely covering up Trump’s failure to carry out the rest of his campaign promises—and the fact that Trump himself has often worked in direct opposition to many of his campaign promises.

Secondly, his rhetoric notwithstanding, President Trump has NOT drawn down America’s involvement in endless foreign wars. Trump’s promise to bring U.S. forces home from Syria is so much hot air. Trump’s “immediate” withdrawal order is now mired in an indefinite time schedule. In other words, there is no time schedule. Our troops that are still fighting in Syria are not only still based in Syria, but they are also still using bases in Iraq as launching pads for military excursions into Syria. Of course, Trump promised that the U.S. bases in Iraq were not going anywhere—and that’s one promise he will keep.

Our troops are still fighting endless wars in Afghanistan and Somalia. In fact, Trump has shoved record military spending through Congress and has done nothing to reduce America’s global military presence (U.S. troops are stationed in over 160 countries, which equates to 95% of the world’s foreign military bases). America is as much the global cop as it was when Trump was elected. No, that’s not quite true: We are MUCH MORE the global cop than when Trump was elected, as Trump has expanded our military presence in Eastern Europe to unprecedented levels—levels not even seen during the Cold War.

Thirdly, as we have just passed the 46th anniversary of the ignoble Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion-on-demand nationwide, unborn children continue to be legally murdered—in spite of the fact that Donald Trump was President and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during the past two years. All of Trump’s “pro-life” rhetoric hasn’t saved the life of a single unborn baby. Since Trump was elected, over 2 million unborn children have been mercilessly murdered in the wombs of their mothers—with the complete approbation of a Republican-led federal government.

The GOP controlled the entire federal government for 4.6 years of G.W. Bush's eight years in office—and they controlled the entire federal government for the past two years of Donald Trump’s presidency. They did NOTHING about Roe v Wade under Bush, and they have done NOTHING about Roe v Wade under Trump. These phony pro-life GOP congressmen and senators haven't even defunded America's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

Fourthly, as to ending the federal government’s extravagant spending habits, what a crock! During 8 years of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the federal debt INCREASED $7.9 trillion. And a Trump presidency did nothing to reduce Washington’s out-of-control spending—even with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.

Fifthly, what about Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp”? This is one of Trump’s biggest lies of all. Trump never intended to drain the swamp. From the outset of his presidency, he began appointing mostly CFR globalists, neocons, warmongers, Zionists, corporate elitists and corrupt government insiders to his administration. And he hasn’t stopped.

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing my conservative Christian brethren say things like, “Trump is trying his best, but he’s getting no help from his cabinet and staff.” Well, DUH! Who picked his cabinet and staff? Trump did.

Then they say things like, “Trump doesn’t really understand these issues; he really wants to do right, but he’s getting bad advice.” BARF! If he didn’t understand the issues, he’s had two full years as President of the United States to get caught up. But he continues to make the same unconstitutional, big-government, warmongering decisions over and over again. The excuse that “he wants to do right, but is getting bad advice” just doesn’t wash anymore. It’s time for Trump’s supporters to wake up and realize that Donald Trump is a great big boy, not a little kid, and is fully capable of thinking for himself.

Donald Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s known exactly what he’s been doing from day number one. He is the consummate con man. He is a charlatan. He is a double-tongued pretender. He has filled the executive branch of the federal government with the same crooks as presidents before him.

And now Trump’s selection of William Barr as America’s next attorney general is the final straw. There can be NO MORE DOUBT.

William Barr is the swamp creature’s Swamp Creature. He is the personification of all of the evil and wickedness that has gone on in Washington, D.C., during the past 30 years. Name the act of criminality, cover-up or act of chicanery that has taken place in Washington D.C., over the last 30 years, and William Barr is probably neck deep in it.

Here is a summary of Barr’s career:

*Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.

*CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy (Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.

*When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s “legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others, several of whom were likely involved with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy assassination, and numerous southeast Asian operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden Triangle narco-trafficking.

*Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA abuses.

*Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean opposition leader Orlando Letelier.

*Barr joined George H.W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice presidency (under President Ronald Reagan). Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief Legal Counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.

*Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or arrest.

*In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal organizations,” drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice Department power to escape punishment.

*Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes, including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all crimes of state committed by Bush.

*Barr provided legal cover for Bush’s illegal foreign policy and war crimes.

*Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically connected international law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys. K&E’s clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital.

If all of this isn’t bad enough, William Bar is a co-conspirator in the murders of Vicki and Sammy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. James Bovard tells the story:

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Attorney General nominee William Barr have focused heavily on Barr’s views on Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But nobody is asking about Barr’s legal crusade for blanket immunity for federal agents who killed American citizens.

Barr received a routine questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee asking him to disclose his past work including pro bono activities “serving the disadvantaged.” The “disadvantaged” that Barr spent the most time helping was an FBI agent who slayed an Idaho mother holding her baby in 1992. Barr spent two weeks organizing former Attorneys General and others to support “an FBI sniper in defending against criminal charges in connection with the Ruby Ridge incident.” Barr also “assisted in framing legal arguments advanced… in the district court and the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit,” he told the committee.

That charitable work (for an FBI agent who already had a federally paid law firm defending him) helped tamp down one of the biggest scandals during Barr’s time as Attorney General from 1991 to early 1993. Barr was responsible for both the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, two federal agencies whose misconduct at Ruby Ridge “helped to weaken the bond of trust that must exist between ordinary Americans and our law enforcement agencies,” according to a 1995 Senate Judiciary Committee report.

After Randy Weaver, an outspoken white separatist living on a mountaintop in northern Idaho, was entrapped by an undercover federal agent, U.S. marshals trespassed on Weaver’s land and killed his 14-year-old son, Sammy [by shooting him in the back]. The following day, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi killed his wife, Vicki, as she was standing in the cabin doorway [holding her baby in her arms]. Horiuchi had previously shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of the cabin. The suspects were never given a warning or a chance to surrender and had taken no action against FBI agents. Weaver survived.

After an Idaho jury found Weaver not guilty on almost all charges, federal judge Edward Lodge slammed the Justice Department and FBI for concealing evidence and showing “a callous disregard for the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice.” A Justice Department internal investigation compiled a 542-page report detailing federal misconduct and coverups in the case and suggested criminal charges against FBI officials involved in Ruby Ridge.

Barr told the New York Times in 1993 that he was not directly involved in the Ruby Ridge operation. Two years later, the Washington Post revealed that “top officials of the Bush Justice Department had at least 20 [phone] contacts concerning Ruby Ridge in the 24 hours before Vicki Weaver was shot,” including two calls involving Barr.

In January 1995, FBI director Louis Freeh announced wrist slaps for the FBI officials involved, including his friend Larry Potts, who supervised the operation from headquarters and who approved the shoot-without-provocation orders that “contravened the constitution of the United States,” according to the Justice Department internal report.

When Attorney General Janet Reno later nominated Potts for deputy director of the FBI, top newspapers and members of Congress protested, but Barr told the New York Times that his friend Potts “was deliberate and careful, and I developed a great deal of confidence in his judgment… I can’t think of enough good things to say about him.”  A few months later, the FBI suspended Potts after suspected perjury regarding Ruby Ridge. (Potts was not charged and retired two years later.)

The Justice Department paid $3 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit from the Weaver family. But when Boundary County, Idaho filed criminal charges against Horiuchi, Barr sprang to action seeking immunity for FBI snipers. He spearheaded efforts to sway the court to dismiss all charges because holding a sniper liable would “severely undermine, if not cripple, the ability of future attorneys general to rely on such specialized units in moments of crisis such as hostage taking and terrorist acts.”

When the Justice Department won an initial appeals court victory in the case in 2000, federal judge Alex Kozinski warned in a dissent of a new James Bond “007 standard for the use of deadly force” against American citizens. The same court reversed that decision the following year. Kozinski, writing for the majority, declared: “A group of FBI agents formulated rules ofengagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat.  Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.”

Does William Barr still endorse “wartime rules” and a “007 standard” that absolve federal agents for questionable shootings of Americans?  Does Barr consider “illegal government killings” to be an oxymoron? Best of all, can Barr explain to us his understanding of the phrase “government under the law”?

See also this report in The American Conservative.

In addition, as far as William Barr is concerned, the Fourth Amendment does not even exist. Senator Rand Paul notes that Barr "has been a big supporter of the PATRIOT Act, which lowered the standard for spying on Americans, and he even went so far as to say the PATRIOT Act was pretty good — we should go much further."

Rand also said that Barr is a “big fan” of seizing people’s property through civil asset forfeiture. Rand continued by saying that “the first things I’ve learned about him [Barr] being for more surveillance of Americans is very, very troubling.”

Furthermore (yes, there is more), William Barr told liberal gun grabber Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in his senate confirmation hearing for becoming America’s next attorney general that he fully intends to push forward with Donald Trump’s Hitlerian “take the guns first, go through due process second” gun confiscation laws, also known as “red flag” laws. And remember: It was Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who gave us more gun control by outlawing “bump stocks.”

Yep! The promise to protect the Second Amendment is another promise Trump has broken (that’s Number Six).

I have written previously about these Stalinesque “red flag” gun confiscation laws. And I will continue to warn people about these unconstitutional, draconian “red flag” laws as long as they continue to pose a threat to our liberties.

Of course, not only are most of the individual states currently in the process of considering “red flag” gun confiscation laws (13 states have already passed them), Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL) has also introduced a national “red flag” law.

“Red flag” gun confiscation laws are the same kind of laws that were used to confiscate the weapons of undesirables (meaning anyone the state doesn’t like) in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China—and in every despotic nation of the world.

Here is a warning about “red flag” laws (and the NRA) from TheFireArmGuy.

And here is William Barr’s statement that “red flag” gun confiscation laws are the “single most important thing” government can do regarding gun control.

Internet blogger and longtime supporter of Donald Trump, Carl F. Worden, recently wrote this:

Now I can understand how Trump fell for the wrongful nominations of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.  That was early-on in Trump's presidency and Trump had no way of knowing those he trusted for advice were in fact Deep State maggots intent on destroying his presidency.  But this is a solid two years into Trump's first term, and it is more than obvious that Barr will not be a team player for Trump -- or us! In fact, Barr has a very troubling record on Second Amendment issues.

At this time, I have no confidence left in Donald J. Trump.  He is either a complete fool, or he knows exactly what he's doing, and either way he's not fit to represent me anymore.

No more excuses, Mr. Trump!

Bravo, Carl!

Sadly, a host of Trump’s supporters continue to be bamboozled by the elaborate psyops misinformation (translated: propaganda) entity known as QAnon, which keeps reassuring the Trump faithful that he is covertly waging war against the globalist insiders and that any day now the curtain is going to collapse on the swamp creatures. It’s all a hoax to give Trump cover—and more time.

If the nomination of William Barr as America’s next “Top Cop” doesn’t awaken the “Always Trumpers,” there is absolutely no hope for them. Even worse is the fact that the longer Christians and conservatives continue to make excuses for Trump’s lies and deceptions, there is less and less hope for America.

© Chuck Baldwin

In Defense of Lee And Jackson, August 24, 2017

See some Clarifications below Chuck Baldwin's article by Anna Von Reitz.

In Defense of Lee And Jackson By Chuck Baldwin August 24, 2017 Ever since the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, took place, memorials and statues of the great men of the Confederacy--along with the flags of the Confederacy--are being vandalized or taken down by municipal governments. In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow Southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He said if the South lost, “It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken. History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, and traitors. Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did not have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that Southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. If one is wrong, both are wrong. How can we celebrate the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? In fact, Southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the Southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks. In fact, before the South seceded, several Northern states had threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the Southern states even considered such a thing. People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far more sacred than a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully separate (under Natural and divine right) is the most preposterous proposition possible. People also say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did not free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had no authority in the Southern states, as they had separated into another country. Lincoln had no more authority to issue a proclamation in the CSA than the British Crown has authority to issue a proclamation in the states of the USA today. Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation didn't free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? (Source: Mildred Lewis Rutherford, “Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, and Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States,” 1861-1865, p. 35) The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln actually SUPPORTED an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which would have been the 13th Amendment) proposed by Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin that said: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by laws of said State.” You read it right. Lincoln supported an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.” Think, folks: Why would the Southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the Southern (and Northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery--especially considering that the vast majority of Southerners did not own a single slave? What nonsense! The problem was, Lincoln wanted the Southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today. This is much the same story as the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were much LOWER than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO! In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between The States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States, not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.” What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact--BY FORCE. The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery. Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861. Abraham Lincoln himself said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens (who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy), Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.” Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln himself said the Southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery. Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.” The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln. On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. . . . The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours.” Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one. Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about The War Between The States? It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and the Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that triggered Southern independence--policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy--and they might have a notion to again resist. By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the Southern generals and fighting acumen of the Southern men had put the Northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South. Here’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “Civil War.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., any more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper name for that war is either “The War Between The States” or “The War Of Southern Independence” or, more fittingly, “The War Of Northern Aggression.” Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and in all likelihood ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the other leaders of the Confederacy had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against Lincoln’s aggression. In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against Southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the Southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. This never happened. Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the South, but many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully integrated Southern army. I bet your history book never told you that. The slave trade had ended in 1808 per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying too. It would have died a peaceful death in a few short years, just as it had in Great Britain. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in England. America’s so-called Civil War was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself are responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.” By the time Lincoln launched his war against the Southern states, the entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a very small fraction of Southerners even owned slaves, and the vast majority of Southern leaders, including Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson, openly supported abolishing slavery. Speaking of Lee and Jackson, without question, these two were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would have even won the War Between the States. In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, “In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that--as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal.” Furthermore, Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen and two of the most noble and honorable men--Christian or otherwise--this country has ever produced. Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach. It is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by these children and their parents. In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” He also said “the best men in the South” opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see “the shackles struck from every slave.” To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent--and that they were already working to dismantle--is the height of absurdity. It is equally repugnant to impugn and denigrate the memory of these remarkable Christian gentlemen. In fact, after refusing Abraham Lincoln’s offer to command the Union Army in 1861, Robert E. Lee wrote to his sister on April 20 of that year to explain his decision. In the letter he wrote, “With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army and save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed . . . .” Lee’s decision to resign his commission with the Union Army must have been the most difficult decision of his life. Remember that Lee’s direct ancestors had fought in America’s War For Independence. His father, “Light Horse Harry” Henry Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero, Governor of Virginia, and member of Congress. In addition, members of his family were signatories to the Declaration of Independence. Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point “at the head of his class” (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only two cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit. However, Lee knew that Lincoln’s decision to invade the South in order to prevent its secession was both immoral and unconstitutional. As a man of honor and integrity, the only thing Lee could do was that which his father had done: fight for freedom and independence. And that is exactly what he did. Instead of allowing a politically correct culture to sully the memory of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson, all Americans should hold them in a place of highest honor and respect. Anything less is a disservice to history and a disgrace to the principles of truth and integrity. Accordingly, it was more than appropriate that the late President Gerald Ford, on August 5, 1975, signed Senate Joint Resolution 23 “restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee.” According to President Ford, “This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history.” He further said, “General Lee’s character has been an example to succeeding generations . . . .” In addition, most people will be surprised to learn that Confederate soldiers are officially American Veterans by four separate acts of Congress (1900, 1906, 1929, and 1958). Therefore, the desecration and/or removal of the statues and memorials of Confederate veterans is an assault, insult, and attack against ALL of America’s veterans. See this report: Confederate Soldiers – American Veterans By Act Of Congress All of the hysteria over the Confederate monuments and statues is just so much propaganda--and race baiting. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today--and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth (and now twenty-first) century--is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Washington and Jefferson’s vision of liberty and limited government under a constitutional republic died at Appomattox Court House in 1865. And speaking of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, you can mark my words: after the Lincoln-worshipping socialists have finished removing the statues and memorials that honor the brave men of the American Confederacy, they will turn their attention to removing the statues and memorials of the brave men of the American colonies. That’s what tyrants do: they try to remove all semblances of resistance from any city or country that they control. That is exactly what globalist-sponsored terror groups, such as ISIS, are attempting to do among the communities they control--and that’s exactly what globalist-sponsored hate groups such as Antifa are attempting to do in our country right now. You can mark this down: many of the so-called white supremacists and neo-Nazis that we saw in Charlottesville were in reality professional government provocateurs and agitators who were being paid to stir up hate and violence with the intention of creating anti-America groups like Antifa. The CIA does stuff like this all of the time in nations all over the world. There is no doubt in my mind that dark forces within our own federal government are behind most of this civil unrest. In truth, THEY are the real fascists! And, pathetically, many--if not most--of our churches and Christian colleges and universities are following in lockstep with this attack against our heritage. One large Christian college in Florida recently expelled a student for standing in front of a statue of General Lee with a small Confederate flag in his hand. This same college (along with the elementary and high school that it owns and operates) constantly promotes Abraham Lincoln as America’s great savior. I dare say this would be true for the vast majority of Christian schools and churches across the country. No wonder today’s Christians can’t seem to recognize, much less stand up against, unconstitutional government: our churches and Christian schools have turned most of them into sheepish slaves of the state. Today it is Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson; tomorrow it will be George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. And, folks, don’t look now, but tomorrow is already here. P.S. For people to truly understand Abraham Lincoln and his war against the South, I believe it is absolutely essential to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s phenomenal book “The Real Lincoln: A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, And An Unnecessary War.” Instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln was in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized--as the Founding Fathers intended--to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our Republic to this very day. You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were doubtless never taught in school--a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody and unnecessary war. GET THIS BOOK: “The Real Lincoln,” by Thomas DiLorenzo. Find it here: The Real Lincoln

 

From Anna Von Reitz

 I want to add another couple insights into Chuck Baldwin's educational manifesto "In Defense of Lee and Jackson"---- 

1. The so-called American Civil War was never declared by the United States in Congress Assembled.  That means it wasn't a war, folks, it was an illegal mercenary conflict on our shores. 

2.  The so-called American Civil War was never ended by any official peace treaty.  

3. Chuck Baldwin stopped short of really pushing home the truth about the "13th Amendment" to the corporate constitution.  Not only did this deceptive piece of word-smithing not abolish slavery, it made it a permanent fixture and part of the corporate government's policy as it condoned enslavement of "criminals" and left the perpetrators of these venal evils free to define crime and to "criminalize" anyone for anything.  Their heirs have since promulgated more than 80,000,000 "statutory laws" and "administrative codes" which are routinely used for precisely this purpose. 

4. It is more than past time for all of us to wake up and learn our real history and teach it to our children, so that they are not easy prey for the vermin that have infested our shores and cost our nation entire generations lost to war, plagued with unjust taxation, and harassment at the hands of our own paid employees. 

Bill Clark and Chuck Baldwin set the record straight

The meeting last night at Riverstone Lodge north of Eureka with Sheriff Candidate Bill Clark and Pastor Chuck Baldwin was nothing short of a full house runaway success for Bill's candidacy.

The house was full and enthusiastic, with maybe 10 % of those attending from the Flathead valley and the rest from  both north and south Lincoln County.

Pastor Baldwin was introduced by George Hudson, with his explanation of how he came to Montana in 2010 with the intention of helping Pastor Baldwin to do their part to restore Liberty and Freedom.

Chuck Baldwin talked for about an hour and completely refuted the claims made in the TV News. The event was video taped and I am trying to get a copy of that video to post on this website.

Then he introduced and endorsed Bill Clark and after a short break Bill opened the floor to questions.
The meeting started at 7 PM and didn't end until well after 9 PM. with questions from the floor for over an hour. Many things were discussed that the people of this county really want the answers to, and I will do my best to get a copy of that video so you can see it all.

Suffice it to say that if you were not there, you missed one of the very best meetings this county has seen since I came to this area in the early 80s.

In the meantime go to Bill's website here:  http://www.billclarkforsheriff.com

Keep checking this blog for updates in the next few days.

Paul Stramer

Chuck Baldwin answers the TV News smear article!

Chuck Baldwin    

on his facebook page here:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-Baldwin/226997970644468

7 hours ago · Edited

Last week, a journalist from one of the national newspapers in Spain flew to the Flathead Valley to interview me. This is not the first time that a reporter from a foreign country has taken a trip west to interview me. A few months ago, Great Britain sent a journalist. And they all seem to have the same motivation: try to paint Chuck Baldwin as a racist, anti-government extremist. I assume they all must subscribe to the ultra-liberal, hate-filled propaganda newsletters produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), because their questions all smack of SPLC rubbish. I even asked the Spaniard if he got his background information from the SPLC and he wouldn't answer me.

The journalist from Barcelona left disappointed. He didn't find what he was looking for. The London journalist couldn't find what he was looking for either and left in a huff. These people are so predictable.

Then, a local daily rag (called a newspaper) in a Montana city a few miles north of where I live, ran a story about my support for a county sheriff candidate with much the same smear tactics. No, of course, the "reporter" didn't bother to contact me; she just regurgitated the same old radical SPLC propaganda.

It would really be nice if just once-in-awhile a reporter (especially a national reporter) could actually do some real reporting instead of robotically spewing forth the same worn-out liberal drivel.

Over and over, the mainstream media reveal either, 1) lazy journalism, or, 2) deliberate propaganda. Either way, seldom are the American people getting even a semblance of truth from these so-called reporters and journalists. So sad. Journalism used to be an honorable profession. Now-a-days, if you want the facts, you gotta go to the Internet. No wonder the newspapers are going broke.

======================================

My Comments and opinion:   (1st Amendment right invoked here)

No surprise to me.  The people that run TV News got their liberal education in Missoula at the university from what I remember.

They are also radical left wingers as far as I can see. They fall right in to the leftist ideas and they have always done the bidding of the 'good ole boys club' in Lincoln County.  They are as close to communists as I have seen locally. They can't win an argument on the issues so they demonize the messenger.

Here was my counter article published the same day the paper came out.

http://www.paulstramer.net/2014/09/tv-news-tries-to-smear-bill-clark-and.html

 I am surprised that you have not known about this MHRN radical hate mongering organization before.

They take most of their material from the SPLC  hate organization. That's Southern Poverty Law Center.

These people are radicals and communists who are deliberately fomenting hate and discontent and are whipping the police agencies into a frenzy over resistance to leftist control and loss of freedom.

SPLC has a long history of some very shady activity. They are so radical that the FBI kicked them off their national website.

They influence the fusion centers that law enforcement get much of their information from.

If I had to pick one word to describe SPLC and MHRN  it would be   SUBVERSIVE  of the American rule of law and the Constitution. Just my opinion of course.  But it's not my opinion alone.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

http://www.splcreport.com/?gclid=CIvD-pyQ5sACFU1afgodXDMAwQ

LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2014 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.

TV News tries to smear Bill Clark and Chuck Baldwin - Don't fall for it!

The following is presented purely as my own opinion under the rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.

It's obvious that the TV News is trying to smear Bill Clark and Chuck Baldwin.  Typical liberal news paper.

They like the good ole boys club that has had Lincoln County under it's thumb for decades, that looks the other way while women are raped, and animals are abused, and who knows how much more gets swept under the rug.

They are trying to make you believe that Chuck Baldwin is against the police.  Exactly the opposite is true.

Here is his own open letter "To my friends in Law Enforcement"

http://libertycrier.com/chuck-baldwin-open-letter-friends-law-enforcement/

The 'good ole boys club' always has to have their whipping boy. For years it was me. Those of you who know me know that I have always promoted law and order and the rule of law, and exposed those who twist and break the law.

The US Constitution and the Constitutions of the States ARE THE SUPREME LAW of this land.

They don't like Bill Clark because he represents the idea that the law applies to everyone including those in office.

He won't play favorites like the 'good ole boys club' in Lincoln County and he can NOT be controlled by political wheelers and dealers.  

They want you to believe that he won't police the community. Exactly the opposite is true.

They accused Rex Nichols of wanting to start a war.  Will they accuse Bill of trying to start a war with the feds?

They want you to believe Chuck Baldwin is some kind of nut.  So after reading his own words in the article above, can you really believe anything else this liberal rag has to say about Bill and Chuck?

I don't go to Chuck Baldwin's Liberty Fellowship, and we absolutely don't agree on religion but he is telling the truth in his article.

If you want the status quo vote for Roby Bowe,  If you want FREEDOM TO START elect Bill Clark

The author, in smearing Chuck Baldwin, ran to the Montana Human Rights Network, a far left wing extremist hate organization that gets most of it's information from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an even more hateful extremist organization that smears patriots with a broad brush calling them every name in the book because they can't win an honest argument on the real issues, so demonization is all they have left. NOBODY BELIEVES THEM ANY MORE, except the corrupt federal agencies and those of the local police and sheriffs who are also corrupt.

To see how Bill Clark really stands on the issues go here:

http://www.billclarkforsheriff.com/   and here:  

http://www.billclarkforsheriff.com/issues-in-lincoln-county-sheriffs-office.html

Get to know the real Bill Clark here!

Paul Stramer

WHAT RON PAUL'S DETRACTORS REVEAL

By Chuck Baldwin

February 23, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

It is no secret that I am a huge Ron Paul fan--and I have been for many years. Do I agree with him on every single issue? Of course not. And I don't have to agree with him on every single issue to know Ron Paul is the only true constitutionalist in the Presidential field--from either major party. And when a President (or any other public office holder) takes his or her oath of office, they do not swear to be a good conservative, or to be a good Christian, or to support the state of Israel, or to "create jobs," etc., etc. They swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is their solemn oath before God and the American people. Nothing more. Nothing less. And for over two decades, Congressman Ron Paul has demonstrated his fidelity to that oath. And for that, I can and must support him.


Read the entire article here:  http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin689.htm

Upside-down land in distress

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...


A Muslim officer crying "Allah Akbar" while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed "Workplace Violence" while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a "Domestic Terrorist".

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend more money.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher"cute" but hosting a sexual exploration class on a college campus is perfectly acceptable.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if..

Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if..

The rights of the State come before the rights of the individual.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...
Your government can add anything they want to your kid's water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You have to have your parents signature to go on a field trip but not to get an abortion.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burqa is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

You know you live in Upside-down Land if...

Using the "N" word is considered "hate speech" but writing and signing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered "art".

Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. Our world has been turned upside-down. We are in distress. Where do we go from here?

I say elect Ron Paul for President, and Bob Fanning for Governor of Montana!