Posted by Larry Miller on March 8, 2010 under How | 
February 23 marks the anniversary of the beginning of the battle of the Alamo back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.
It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally known frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 23 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do. There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.
Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are inseparable: destroy one and all will die. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on February 8, 2010 under Why |
Most of us Americans have a deep and abiding respect and admiration for our country’s fighting men who have served–and are serving–within the US Armed Forces. We appreciate their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way for the preservation of our nation’s liberty and independence. We honor their sacrifice. Indeed, many of us share that sacrifice with the deaths, dismemberments, and paralysis of our most cherished loved ones who were killed or injured in the line of duty.
It is time, however, that we awaken to the reality of what our military is becoming and where it is heading. Suffice it to say, this is not your father’s army.
On December 8, 1941, my father, Ed Baldwin–along with his two brothers, Bud and Gene–marched down to a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enlist. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the day before, and no branch of service had to beg people to enlist that day. Bud joined the Navy. Gene joined the Marines. When government officials saw Dad’s resumé, they selected him to help construct the atomic bomb. All three brothers served their country with distinction throughout the war. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on November 24, 2009 under Why |
Editors note: this is a letter a New Jersey woman wrote to her local paper expressing what many of us feel this time of year. Thanksgiving is a great time to enjoy our families and express gratitude for all the good things this great country has to offer. However we cannot forget those who cannot be with their families and friends this holiday season… just like we cannot forget those who will never be coming home to their families and friends. Keep them in your prayers as well, both for their safety and their sense of abandonment. If there is a family near you that will be alone because daddy or mommy is overseas, why not invite them to join you for your dinner?
Dear Editor:
While I’m eating my Thanksgiving dinner with my family this year, I’m going to have a hard time enjoying it knowing that our President is willingly allowing our men and women in Afghanistan to die while waiting for him to make up his mind whether or not to give them the resources they need for survival. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on November 23, 2009 under Why |
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.
So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on November 12, 2009 under Why |
Barack Hussein Obama appears to be having a difficult time deciding if he will take the word of his man on the scene, General Stanley McCrystal who requested 40,000 more soldiers in the field to the job done. He also has the anti-American left that put him in office to please. They just want us to waive the white flag, apologize for being Americans and slink on home. It’s also possible that each of his advisors has their own little variation on the best way to accomplish whatever they would like to see happen in Afghanistan.
While we could argue about our justification for being in the God-forsaken land, but, while it may make us feel good, that ship has sailed. This involvement is quite a picklement for the man who may sincerely be trying to balance his duties as Commander in Chief with his own feelings about the country and those of his most vocal supporters. He gives the appearance of sincerely looking for input and weighing the virtues of each suggestion.
This past weekend, rumors were flying about that he would take partial measures to meet the field commanders requests. Thirty thousand they said, would be on their way… as soon as they could be prepared. This turned out to be false hope for the troops holding things together. Who knows, it may have been a trial balloon to test his supporters reaction to the news.
It may have been a call from George Soros, his pals at the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MoveOn.org or any of his supporters, any of whom would put in a good word to weaken our military and our country. It’s hard to say why this story got started, then shot down, but the fact remains… no decision was made… or did he decide on a plan? Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on November 8, 2009 under How |
The sad case of Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan is just the latest evidence that our culture of political correctness is not only destroying our freedom of speech, but it can have deadly results. The push for politically correctness is actually an effort by those who see themselves as elites to tell us poor unfortunate and uneducated commoners that there are some things were are not allowed to say and ideas we are not allowed to discuss… unless it is how awful our country is.
Some courts have even upheld this unconstitutional and anti-American mindset when they have placed hurt feelings above the rights we have been given by our creator. Our constitution says we have the right to express our thoughts and feelings. It does not guarantee that we will never be offended. Yet… some have used this pernicious concept which emanated from the bowels of academia which was once the bastion of free thought and inquiry to stifle free thought and inquiry. However, in this era of specialization, we have teachers teaching and professors professing that have spent their whole lives behind ivy covered walls, having successfully avoided real world participation. They have given us the benefit of the output of their great minds that are unencumbered by the reality the rest of us live in.
In the case of Major Hasan, we see that politically correct thinking most likely is running amok, even in our fine military. Reports are that he was inflicting his anti-war and anti-American views on recovering service men. We are also told that he was angrily spreading the word that our country was at war with his Islamic faith… and that those that take part deserve death. We are told that he gave away his possessions in his apartment prior to this attack… as if he were not coming back. And, lastly, we are told that he shouted praises to Allah before beginning his attack. Yet, the Commander in Chief is not interested in having investigators pursue the possibility that his extreme religious views led to his horrible actions. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on September 11, 2009 under Why |
Today most of us thinking back to that awful day when our country was brutally attacked by nineteen men blinded by hate fueled by following an evilly false doctrine. We were taken by surprise – how could anyone hate such good people like us? This question brings up two important points. First, that the hatred of the Islamofascists is only logical from within their distorted view of the world. Second, that there actually are many who show disdain for what our great country has traditionally stood for – some living among us… and some in our leadership.
The sad and frightening part about this is that after two world tours apologizing for America’s misdeeds and surrounding himself with people who denounce the idea of American exceptionalism, it’s hard to have confidence in our President’s ability or inclination to protect us from further attacks. This uneasy feeling is enhanced when we see him more open to friendship with our enemies like Hugo Chavez than our traditional friends like Great Britain or Israel.
It is apparent that we shall have to depend on divine protection if we are to survive this peril, as it is clear we cannot look to an incompetent and unconcerned government for our safety. This is the same divine providence that provided the screen of fog that shielded George Washington’s retreating troops from pursuing British regulars at Brooklyn Heights in 1776. This is as it has always been from that time forward, but more so today than ever, which is ironic as our leaders are attempting more and more every day to be the primary source of our salvation. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on August 18, 2009 under Why |
The Internet is abuzz with news about the construction of internment camps all across America. Of course, “mainstream” media outlets refuse to touch the subject; or if they do, they pooh-pooh the story; they do what Glenn Beck recently did: try to debunk the story as fallacious and impugn people who speak of it as “conspiracy nuts.” The fact that the Becks, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys of the media circus refuse to deal with the construction of large numbers of internment camps does not make them disappear, however.
For starters, all anyone need do to begin a serious investigation of the subject of internment camps is Google the phrase “FEMA Camps.” There is more than enough evidence in that search engine alone to keep one busy with some in-depth private investigation of the subject for quite a while.
Another URL to check out is this one from the June 2009 Idaho Observer:
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20090609.htm
As people read my columns all across America, I have had numerous readers contact me, saying that they have personally witnessed the transportation of construction materials used for internment camps, have actually worked in and around them, or have personally seen such camps. These eyewitness testimonies have come from very credible people, including law enforcement and military personnel, as well as airline pilots and construction workers. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on June 9, 2009 under Why |
Much has been made of President Barack Obama’s “reconciliation” speech in Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused on Obama’s attempt to “repair” relations with the Muslim nations of the world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to kill infidels–meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of America’s major media failed to report this story. See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100504 )
As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama’s speech was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America’s mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:
“Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.” (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source: WhiteHouse.gov)
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a “New World Order;” Bush II called it an “international order;” Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.’s “New World Order” mantra; and Barack Obama called it a “world order.” Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order? Obama’s speech goes a step further, however. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on May 28, 2009 under Why |
From the writings of Columbus to the Mayflower Compact, to the Declaration of Independence, America’s founders clearly and articulately enshrined bedrock Christian principles in the foundation of this country.
For example, in explaining the purpose of his journey that led to the discovery of the new world, Christopher Columbus said, “It was the Lord who put into my mind–I could feel His hand upon me–the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies . . . All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me . . . There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . . For the execution of the journey to the Indies I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied . . . No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His Holy service . . . the fact that the Gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time–this is what convinces me.” (Source: Columbus’ Book of Prophecies)
Our pilgrim fathers wrote in the Mayflower Compact, “In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten . . . Having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith . . . a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia.”
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson invokes our Creator-God no less than four times. In fact, Jefferson predicates the Declaration on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and concludes the Declaration with an appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” and with “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on May 26, 2009 under How |
North Korea set just set off nuclear and missile tests that set the western nations all atwitter. Kim Jong-Il loves the attention, sort of like a crazy man with a gun at the local mall. Only things aren’t quite so straight forward when the actors are nations. We can’t just send in snipers and eliminate the danger. I know I felt better when I saw the brief statement by our President strongly condemning this action and promising to work with the international community in strongly condemning the tests and promising to work for even more severe sanctions on the rogue regime.
The fact that such responses have been so effective in the past is encouraging. Wait a minute… in reviewing the history of our relations with North Korea it seems that such actions have produced no change in actions and policies of the Asian nation. Perhaps the leader is unaware of the displeasure expressed by the international community as the state run press certainly will not be carrying any stories critical of his actions… sort of like the New York Times and the Obama administration.
If only we could get his personal email address so the President could contact him directly with his strongly worded message… maybe using ALL CAPS and perhaps even bolding some of the stronger words for emphasis. Then we might be able to get through to Kim Jong-Il, who, wanting to be a good neighbor to us all, will abandon the program.
If this doesn’t work, there is talk of pressuring China to encourage North Korea to put the brakes on their nuclear program. This is an excellent plan as our good friends the Chicoms have always been looking out for our well being and would be happy to help us out by easing world tensions. Some might say we don’t much leverage with China anymore, I’m not sure this is true. The United States has become such a huge customer for Chinese goods and they have bought so much of our debt, we need to approach them in terms of protecting their investment. We need to explain that if the crazy Korean starts lobbing nukes at the US, it would make it much more difficult for us to pay back the loans they have given us. Read more of this article »
Posted by Larry Miller on May 23, 2009 under Why |
This country of ours was born out of a conflict. It was a conflict between those who wanted to claim God’s gift of freedom and those who wanted to keep them subservient to the British Empire. They believed our creator designed us for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They stood up to the most powerful military force of their time and, because of dedication and determination, our founding fathers succeeded in throwing off the chains of the British Crown. But it was at a terrible cost.
Families lost their homes, farms and plantations, but more importantly, fathers, sons, brothers, some to British musket balls and bayonets, some to disease. These brave freedom fighters gave their fellow countrymen what would become the greatest nation on earth. They had no idea of what was in store for these United States of America… they just wanted to be free, and they wanted their sons and daughters to grow up on a land where liberty, not a monarch, reigned.
Whether it was the frozen fields of Valley Forge or the dark-of-night bayonet attack at Yorktown, these farmers, shoemakers and black smiths gave their time and devotion to the fledgling county. Some of them gave their lives. These are the people we remember on Memorial Day.
These brave souls along with those who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-day, who flew the bombers that decimated the Third Reich’s ability to make war, the Marines who dug the enemy out of Iwo Jima and the hundreds of other battles from steamy jungles to burning deserts where victory was won at the price of America’s finest men and, sometimes, women. These are the people we honor this and every Memorial Day. Read more of this article »
Posted by Chuck Baldwin on May 12, 2009 under How, Why |
Many patriotic Americans, including many retired and former military personnel, are increasingly chagrined at the direction the U.S. armed forces are taking. For one thing, there were numerous instances in the Clinton and both Bush administrations when American GIs were required to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Does anyone remember the Michael New case? How can any American GI, who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, willingly surrender himself to a foreign commander, flag, or uniform? That is a potential conflict that has caused many to question modern military service.
Another potential moral conflict in modern military service (at least for Christians) is the inter-sex training and quartering that is now required in every branch of military service (except the Marine Corps). To put healthy young adults of the opposite sex in such close and, many times, compromising environments is more than problematic for those wishing to stay morally pure. (Christian parents should know that many state colleges and universities now require students to live in coed dorms, including using coed bathrooms and showers.) Add to this President Barack Obama’s determination to expunge the Department of Defense’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, thereby allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military. All of the above has many Christians questioning the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to today’s U.S. military.
Another disconcerting element of modern military service is the reality that today’s American military is more and more being used as the tool of globalists to forge an international New World Order. For instance, both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations will send U.S. military personnel (including the National Guard) to guard the borders of foreign countries, but never ask them to protect our own borders. Sending the National Guard overseas, especially, strains the principles of constitutional government. But maybe that explains why we have so many foreign troops on U.S. soil. After all, did President George W. Bush not ask foreign troops to monitor our borders and skies in the weeks and months following the attacks on 9/11? Read more of this article »
