Friday, September 11, 2009

Anthony Gregory on the Causes, Aftermath, and Lessons of 9/11

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, much has changed about life here in these United States. Much has also changed about the way in which this country conducts itself abroad. The issues at stake have created deep divisions among us: why can't we get Osama bin Laden? was the Iraq war necessary? what do we do now?

In the following wonderful article, Campaign for Liberty editor-in-chief Anthony Gregory examines the causes, aftermath and lessons of 9/11. What he says may be difficult for some to accept, but I feel that it will be impossible to deny:


Understanding the Atrocity

Why did it happen? One answer given was that the terrorists simply hated America for its freedom. Those who believed this tended to feel that war was the only answer -- war to punish the evildoers and war to rebuild foreign societies so they would be free and no longer resent us. Another answer given was that the terrorists, although murderous criminals, were exploiting genuine grievances that many people in Muslim countries had against U.S. foreign policy.

Osama bin Laden repeatedly stressed the major objections: The U.S. had been supporting apostate dictatorships in the Muslim world, given one-sided support to Israel, occupied holy land such as the Arabian Peninsula, and enforced brutal sanctions on the Iraqi people that had left hundreds of thousands of Muslims, mostly children, dead.

Americans are warned not to forget what happened eight years ago, but we must not assume history began on that date. Those in the Muslim world tend to have a much longer memory.

In 1953, the CIA helped to oust the once-democratically elected leader of Iran, a man who had been featured as Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" just a year before, and replaced him with the corrupt and brutal Shah, a dictator who ushered in a period of torture, terror and mass inflation. Twenty-six years later we saw the "blowback" -- a term the CIA uses to describe the unintended reaction from American policy abroad -- in the form of the Islamic Revolution. Iran fell under the grip of fundamentalists, but most of the nation would not rally against America for purely cultural reasons. What united them was resentment toward the U.S. meddling in their country.

Meanwhile, as part of the Cold War, the U.S. began supporting agitators in Afghanistan so as to incite a Soviet invasion and bring about an overstretch of the Soviet military. Although today most Americans think of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan at the time as purely defensive against Soviet belligerence, President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted this was far from the case in a 1998 interview:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

These U.S.-allied Mujahideen in Afghanistan were championed as "freedom fighters," but many went on to form the basis of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban became one of the most brutal and backwards regimes on the planet, but as late as May of 2001, the U.S. was sending tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban to finance its war on opium...


Read the full article at:

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Button, Button

The 1980s revival of the Twilight Zone series featured an episode entitled "Button, Button," based on a short story by sci-fi veteran Richard Matheson (I Am Legend, What Dreams May Come). In the story, a strange package arrives at the small apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, who appear to be about one bill away from relocating to a matching set of cardboard boxes. Mrs. Lewis opens the package and discovers that it contains a simple wooden box with a clear plastic lid overtop a large red button (the type of contraption teens might build in a high school woodshop class). Also included is a note advising that someone will be in touch to explain everything.

Later that afternoon, as promised, a mysterious, black-clad gentleman arrives at the apartment and presents Mrs. Lewis with an offer that proves both tempting and frightening. He informs her that she and her husband have two options with regard to the box:

1. Don’t push the button. The man will come back to reclaim the box. No gain, no loss. The end.

2. Push the button, after which two things will happen: "Someone whom you do not know will die. And afterward you will receive $200,000, tax-free."

The stranger then leaves to let the bewildered Mrs. Lewis think over her options.

That night, when Mr. Lewis comes home, the couple argue over whether the offer is real, and, if so, what to do about it. Mr. Lewis decides that it would be unconscionable to press the button, as it would result in murder. His wife disagrees; she wants to go for it. After all, what is the death of someone they don’t know? People die all the time, don’t they? "What if it was some old Chinese peasant, or someone with cancer?" she argues. "And what if it’s someone’s newborn baby?" her husband counters.

After a sleepless night and more arguing, Mrs. Lewis decides that she is owed this opportunity. She opens the box, looking as if she half expects it to bite her, and quickly presses the button. Nothing dramatic or ominous happens... at least not immediately. Later that afternoon, however, the mysterious man in black returns. He presents the Lewises with a briefcase full of cash, and reclaims his button box. Nervously puffing away on a cigarette, Mrs. Lewis asks if someone... "well, you know... " She’s unable to bring herself to say the word "died". "Of course," the man replies matter-of-factly. Then, when she asks him what will happen next, he looks into her eyes and says: "The button unit will be reprogrammed and offered to someone else, the same terms and conditions...I can assure you it will be offered to someone whom you don’t know."

Hardly a day passes when I don’t spend at least some time wondering how it is that America has gone from being a constitutional republic to more of a ‘people’s republic,’ and how much longer I’ll be able to discuss such questions in public before some heavily-armed civil servants kick my door in and haul me off to be shocked or waterboarded into correct thinking. And in considering these issues, I am convinced, now more than ever, that the premise of that old Twilight Zone episode speaks forcibly to the central aspect of our current problem.

It’s all about who we don’t know.

Think about it this way:

How many of the socialists that you see clamoring for more government programs and intervention on TV would, if offered the chance, walk into an average American home (assuming no 2nd Amendment deterrent, of course), raid all of the available wallets and purses in that home, and then go donate the money they confiscate to some charity or politically-correct cause? Can you see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer walking into someone’s living room and announcing: "We’re here to tell you what’s best for you and your family. We’ll decide what school your children will attend and what they’ll be taught there. We’ll decide what doctors you can see, what medications you can have, and whether or not you can try alternative treatments. We’ll decide what you can eat and how much of it you can have. We’ll decide what causes you will support with your money and how much you’ll give. We’ll decide how you should fit into society and which of your personal beliefs are a threat to society and should be suppressed. We’ll decide what privileges you will be allowed. And, oh, by the way, we’re also going to force you to maintain the system that will ensure that you abide by our directives. Any attempt to deviate from said directives will result in serious consequences."

Now, granted, there are people who would do things like this if they thought they could get by with it. By and large, however, most people would not. Why? Because confrontations such as what I’ve described above are personal. When you enter someone’s home, or otherwise spend time with them, you can attach a name and a face to them. You can see where and how they live, what difficulties they struggle with, what is dear to them, what their strengths and weaknesses are, what hopes and dreams they may have. Under such circumstances, they are individuals, and they are real to you as individuals. You may think that you know better than they do, but you’re not likely to tell them that, and you’re even less likely to try forcing your views on them.

But while this is generally the rule in individual situations, things change completely come election day, when we find ourselves in the voting both and that curtain swings shut behind us.

Consider an imaginary ballot, and a couple of typical voters:

Option 1 asks Joe Voter whether he favors raising the local sales tax to help pay for a new sports arena. What it’s also asking, albeit in a more subtle form, is whether Joe thinks that his friends and neighbors should have to sacrifice a little more every time they buy anything, so that Joe can get what he wants. But Joe never thinks of it this way. Bob, his next door neighbor, won’t pay the tax; "the city" will. Conveniently, "the city" has no distinct identity. It has no face. Joe doesn’t know "the city," so he feels no guilt in voting for Option 1 and raising Bob’s taxes. Besides, the old arena is a real eyesore; a new one would make Joe feel as if he lived in a more upscale community.

In the booth next to Joe, Barbara reads over Option 2, which asks whether the state’s blue laws should remain in effect, prohibiting the sale of general merchandise prior to 1:30 pm on Sundays. Barbara supports Option 2 because she hates commercialism in general and thinks that people need to slow down more. She and her family could always stay home on Sunday and let everyone else go about their business, of course, but she considers this a "family values" issue and therefore a matter of "what's best for everyone," regardless of whether "everyone" sees it that way or not. Besides, Barbara’s husband owns a car dealership, and if the other dealers were allowed to be open all day on Sunday, then her husband would either have to lose business to them or else open earlier than he would prefer.

We wear such amazingly effective political blinders, don’t we? It’s always "the city," "the county," "the state," or "the country," that pays for what we want and heels to our demands. Never Bob the struggling family man. Never Jill the single mom. Never anyone we know. Never anyone we have to explain ourselves to.

Such is the cold, impersonal ugliness of statism, and the subtle, de-humanizing way in which it works itself into our consciousness. Statists never stop to think about the individuals they harm because, politically speaking, individuals either don’t matter to them or else escape their notice. They consider themselves "big picture" people. They see only society itself, broken down into various competing subgroups to be crunched and graphed like so many numbers ("digital individuals," if you will). Civilization is their political blackboard, filled with social equations waiting to be brought into utopian balance. Statists never see Bob or Jill having to struggle harder to make ends meet because of some new tax. What they see is how nice a brand new stadium would look and how it might "advance the community as a whole." The tax Bob and Jill are forced to pay is just their "fair share" of "doing what’s right for the community," and if Bob and Jill object to it, they’re being "selfish" and "short-sighted." Statists never see Rick from down the street being denied a city contract and an opportunity to expand his business simply because he is not the right color or gender. Instead, what they see is someone who is the right color or gender being given that contract in order to "right past wrongs" done to a particular group, and Rick is assigned a portion of the blame for those wrongs, even though he may never have hurt, discriminated against, or otherwise "wronged" anyone in his life. Statists never see those who are turned down for operations, denied treatments, or else suffer and/or die while waiting for treatment while bureaucrats sedately dot their I’s and cross their T’s in the hubs of their vast, tax-based healthcare bureaucracies. All they can see is that they’re extending aid to yet another faceless group: "the unfortunate."

How easily we put on those robes and crowns. How casually we wield the scepters of little gods, passing out life and death, determining who is worthy of what and how much, deciding what’s right on the most intimate levels for people we don’t even know. We play our own version of the button game, day after day.

Press the button, get a guilt-free program. Some "wealthy" person, some privileged "winner of life’s lottery" will be the one to pay for it, right? Perhaps not, but what does that matter in the greater scheme of things? Press the button, get guilt-free social justice. Praise God, someone’s finally gonna pay! Who? Who cares? That’s beside the point, right? Press the button, get guilt-free regulation. After all, other people don’t always know what’s best for them, but we always know, don’t we? And best of all, when you regulate someone’s life from the privacy of the voting booth or the distance of the council room, you don’t have to put up with insolent questions like: "What right do you have to tell me how to live?" And you don’t have to get your hands dirty, either. Government agencies, police departments, and courts will do all the dirty work: hounding people, fining them, running them out of business, prosecuting them, jailing them, taking their children from them, and sometimes killing them. Most of the time, you’ll never even have to hear about it.

And so down the road we go, playing "button, button" with one another, always hoping to get something from someone we don’t know, or forcing them to live by the dictates of our conscience — never thinking that the button box will be reset and handed to someone who doesn’t know us, giving them their own chance to play God with us and the things we hold most dear.

Folks, we can launch all of the ad campaigns we want, hire the most riveting speakers we can find, and money-bomb the daylights out of the Ron Paul’s and Peter Schiff’s of the world, and we will still lose our freedoms until and unless we can make our fellow citizens see "the city," "the county," "the state," and "the country" as their friends, neighbors and co-workers. We must make them see that their acts of interference in the lives of others forge precedents by which those others are empowered to interfere in their lives. We must bring the cold, impersonal, ugly consequences of statism home in the most personal ways possible. We must make people see the button game for what it is, make them realize that when they step into the voting booth they’re making decisions that affect real people, and not always for the better. For starters, try getting those you know to ask themselves some of the following questions the next time they go to cast a vote:

1. Do I have the right — personally — to do what I’m about to ask government to do on my behalf? If not, how can I give my representatives power that I don’t even possess myself?
2. Would I want someone else to make this sort of decision for me?
3. Is getting my way on this issue worth having someone fined? Is it worth them losing their job? Is it worth sending them to prison? Would it still be worth it if I had to fine them, fire them, or imprison them myself? If not, why would I ask anyone else to do what I am not willing to do myself?
4. What precedent am I setting here? Would I want this sort of power in the hands of the politician or political group I fear the most? Does anyone out there think of me or the politicians and groups I support in that same way already?
5. If a program is supposed to give, what must it first take? From whom will it take it? Could I justify this if I had to face the person I’m voting to take it from?
6. If a program is supposed to provide an opportunity for someone, must it first take that opportunity from someone else? Could I justify taking it if I had to face the affected person?
7. If my community really wants to accomplish something, why must it forcefully collect money for it via taxation? Why can’t sufficient funds be raised privately, through voluntary means?

Some may argue that we shouldn’t "get personal" when it comes to politics, but what they fail to appreciate is that politics is already fundamentally personal. It’s impossible to interfere with the lives of individuals and not affect them personally. If we can make America see this, we can begin to turn the tide, but if not, then the war is lost already, and we’re all just sitting around waiting for our next turn with the button box... and dreading the idea of who may get it after us.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Can Christians Serve in the Modern Army?

The following is a great article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, in which he addresses the question of whether Christians can serve in the modern American armed forces with a clear conscience:


Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army?
by Chuck Baldwin
May 7, 2009

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?

Using U.S. troops as international "peacekeepers" only serves the interests of the international New World Order; it has nothing to do with protecting the lives and property of the American people. In fact, an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States. Accordingly, many Christian parents are hesitant to give their children to modern military service.

If all of the above is not enough, we read this story from Reuters and One News Now: "The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

"Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty--including those based in places like Afghanistan--from trying to convert people to another religion.

"Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source:, 5/5/09)

For any Christian, this episode highlights a very serious conflict of duty. Any genuine Christian must take his Lord's command to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" very seriously. In fact, how can any Christian not witness to others--whoever they are--of Christ's redeeming grace? To refuse to do so amounts to willful rejection of Christ, in which case, it is doubtful that genuine salvation is even present.

Therefore, how can a Christian dutifully obey his Savior and Lord on the one hand, while, at the same time, obeying a military order forbidding him or her from "trying to convert people"? And how could any genuine Christian chaplain willingly confiscate and DESTROY God's Holy Word? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe even Adolf Hitler burned Bibles. He burned a lot of books, but I've never read that he burned God's Word.

Now, no one has more respect and admiration for military personnel than I do. My dad and his two brothers proudly served their country in World War II. One brother served in the U.S. Marines and was wounded in the Pacific. The other served in the Navy, and Dad was selected to work on the Atomic Bomb. I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Gulf War I, and some of my closest friends are former, retired, or active-duty military.

I feel the same way about law enforcement personnel. In my youth, law enforcement was my chosen career. Some of my dearest friends are either retired or active-duty law enforcement officers. It is a noble profession.

We have to be honest enough to admit, however, that both the U.S. military and many of our law enforcement agencies are being co-opted by a politically correct leadership that is in the process of changing the rules of conduct--not to mention the rules of engagement.

Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home.

When we have federal police agents, with no justification or authority, brutally beating an innocent pastor; when FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights; when U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders; when U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen; when military chaplains are ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles; and when soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith; then it is apparent that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better.

It is for good reason that many Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) are looking twice at modern military service. In fact, a retired high-ranking military officer (whose name I will not divulge) recently told me, "Chuck, there is no way I could recommend that anyone volunteer in the U.S. military today."

Obviously, we have a host of honorable men and women of sound character and conviction still serving in both the U.S. military and in various law enforcement agencies. Thank God!

It is also obvious, however, that the powers that be are quickly "remaking" (to use Barack Obama's word) our military and law enforcement agencies into an image never desired or designed by America's Founding Fathers. Thus, the conflict between good men and bad policies will only worsen. And many will continue to question the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to modern military service.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that it is at such a time as this that good men are all the more needed in the U.S. military and in law enforcement. That is a very valid argument, by the way: as long as those good men realize what they will be required to risk when their superiors order them to surrender allegiance to the Constitution or to sacred principle. But then again, we are all required to share in that risk, are we not?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

Friday, May 1, 2009

Upcoming Interview - the "Our Constitution" Show

For anyone who might be interested, I've agreed to be interviewed on the Tuesday, May 5th edition of the "Our Constitution" show on the Patriot's Heart Broadcasting Network. The interview will focus on the Constitution, state sovereignty, and such related issues as nullification and secession.

You can listen online here:

Thursday, April 2, 2009

TSA detains a man for carrying U.S. currency

In another sign of our times, the TSA in St. Louis recently detained a man who was carrying $4,700. What this has to do with public safety, I don't know. Last I heard, cash does not explode, nor do most people find it very threatening, although some of the portraits on the bills do leave me feeling a bit nauseated (particularly $5, $10 and $50 bills).

What makes this all the more interesting, however, was that the detainee was able to record much of his conversation with the TSA thugs. It's illuminating to say the least. Note the part where a TSA rep exclaimed "Are you from this planet?" when he asked them what law required him to answer their questions about where he got his money from.

Flyer beware.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Trillion dollar deficits?

In the latest news from the Twilight Zone, it seems that we're heading for $1 trillion deficit territory and the Obama administration isn't blinking an eye. What makes this even more incredible is that these deficits are predicted to prevail for the next DECADE. $1 trillion deficits each year for the NEXT TEN YEARS!!!

I wish someone would Photoshop pics of Obama and Ben Bernanke onto the famous ending shot from "Thelma and Louise," where they're driving over the cliff. The car could be labeled "U.S. economy". Heck, why not just label it "America"? Add a little "Yes we can" bumper sticker to complete the look.

Sadly, I don't have Photoshop, nor do I have sufficient talent as an artist to draw a good political cartoon of this. Maybe someone else out there can tackle it.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

When in Rome...

Given the current state of our affairs, and the direction our leaders seem determined to take us in, I can't help but think that the United States of America should scrap the Bald Eagle as its national symbol in favor of a violin and a pack of matches.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Naomi Wolf on the Justice Department's "Secret Memos"

Naomi Wolf, writing in the Huffington Post:

If history gets this recent era right, future textbooks will have to show that the US narrowly averted a carefully planned but thorough and unmistakable conspiracy to subvert the rule of law and the process of democracy from 2001-2008. For three years, since writing End of America, I have been arguing that the Bush team sought irretrievably to subvert our liberty. Fortunately, this appalling and conceivably irrevocable subversion of the tenets of freedom was narrowly averted by citizens at every level -- from the grassroots to the courts -- resisting in time. But the release this week by the Justice Department of the "secret memos" sought valiantly by the ACLU confirms that Bush's legal architects were building up the framework for something even scarier than our most anguished projections...

Read the full article here:

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Morgan Freeman on Black History Month

The following is a priceless clip from Mike Wallace's interview with Morgan Freeman. Freeman bucks the system with his comments about Black History Month and racism in America.