Area417

America's Pastors: Preachers Of Truth Or Promoters Of Tyranny?

By Chuck Baldwin
August 21, 2007


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070821.html


Once again, the burden of responsibility to help maintain America's
liberty rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits. That
should not surprise us, because it has always been this way. Part of
what made America great was old fashioned, tell-it-like-it-is,
no-nonsense preaching. Most of what we hear today is a bunch of
mealy-mouthed, pussyfooting, ear-tickling, don't-offend-anyone
preaching, which has largely contributed to America's current slippery
slope into the sewer. But if you thought it could not get any worse,
guess again.

A startling television news report from Shreveport, Louisiana has
revealed a sinister plot hatched deep inside the diabolical brain
cells of the Bush administration to use America's pulpits as promoters
of tyranny. That is a strong statement, I know. But it is true.

According to KSLA television in Shreveport, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) intends to use America's preachers to help pave the way
for martial law in the event of another terrorist attack upon the
United States.

The KSLA report (which you can read for yourself here:
http://www.ksla.com:80/Global/story.asp?S=6937987 )
begins, "Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear
any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger
just that. KSLA 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the
government with potentially their biggest problem: Us."

The report continued by saying, "[G]un confiscation is exactly what
happened during the state of emergency following Hurricane Katrina in
New Orleans, along with forced relocation. U.S. Troops also arrived,
something far easier to do now, thanks to last year's elimination of
the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army
troops from policing on American soil.

"If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie,
'The Siege', easing public fears and quelling dissent would be
critical. And that's exactly what the 'Clergy Response Team' helped
accomplish in the wake of Katrina."

The report went on to say: "[C]lergy response teams would walk a
tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on
the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. 'In a lot
of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in
which they're helping to diffuse that situation,' assured Sandy Davis.
He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland
Security and Emergency Preparedness.

"For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in
helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself,
specifically Romans 13."

Dear Reader, are you getting this?

In order to convince American citizens to surrender their firearms to
the government during a time of martial law, DHS is enlisting the
assistance of America's pastors. According to the DHS, my job as a
church pastor, is to tell my congregation that, according to Romans
13, they must surrender their firearms when the government asks them
to do so.

Of course, faithful readers of this column know that I have already
addressed the Romans 13 question. See
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070810.html

For those who are ignorant of Romans 13, let me address the issue
bluntly: According to Romans 13, every citizen is only bound to obey
his or her governing official to the degree that the governing
official does not violate the duty of the citizen to obey the "higher
powers" which, for Americans, are God and the U.S. Constitution. In
other words, no Christian can be ordered to disobey God, and no
American citizen can be ordered to disobey the U.S. Constitution.
Properly understood, Romans 13 teaches that each and every governing
official (including the President of the United States and all those
under him) must submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Article. VI. Paragraph. 3. of the U.S. Constitution states, "The
Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

So, what does the Constitution say regarding the disarmament of
American citizens? The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution could
not be clearer: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did you get that? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." [Emphasis added]

Therefore, any attempt to disarm the American people must be viewed as
an act of tyranny and must be resisted.

The right to keep and bear arms is rooted deep in American history. I
remind readers that it was the attempted gun confiscation of the
colonists' arms, which had been cached at Concord, Massachusetts, that
directly precipitated the beginning of America's fight for
independence.

America's founders were clear on this subject. Our first President,
George Washington, called our firearms "the people's liberty teeth."
Our third President and author of the Declaration of Independence,
Thomas Jefferson, said, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use
of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to
keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against
tyranny in government."

America's founders spoke unanimously on the subject. Patrick Henry
said, "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is
able may have a gun." Samuel Adams said, "The said Constitution shall
never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

And what did the Lord Jesus Christ tell His followers on this subject?
Jesus said in Luke 11:21, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace,
his goods are in peace." Did you see that? Jesus said that in order
for a man's goods to be "in peace" it was necessary that he be ARMED.
Now, I don't know about you, but I will take the word of Jesus over
the word of a DHS official anytime.

Furthermore, Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36, "[H]e that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Upon hearing the  words of Jesus, Simon Peter responded by saying,
"Lord, behold, here are two swords." (vs. 38) That means at least two
of Jesus' disciples were armed with swords (the 1st Century equivalent
of a modern handgun, something used for personal protection), and
Jesus did not rebuke them or ask them to surrender their swords. He
merely said, "It is enough."

I realize that after Simon Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of
the man as soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane,
Jesus told him to "put up thy sword." But notice, He did not tell him
to "give up" his sword; he merely told him it was not time to use it,
because it was in the plan and providence of God that Jesus be taken
to Pilate, that He might be crucified for our sins.

Don't tell me that the Bible teaches pacifism, because it doesn't. I
am a Christian, and I am a pastor. And I agree with Charlton Heston
who said that they could have his guns "over my cold, dead hands." If
DHS believes that I will ask my congregation to give up their
firearms, they are grossly mistaken.

It also needs to be pointed out that, apparently, DHS must already be
planning to declare martial law in the United States or else this kind
of advanced strategy would not even be necessary. Why would they
already be asking pastors to be prepared to request their church
members give up their guns if they did not intend to declare martial
law?

Now, what every single church-going Christian in America should
immediately find out for themselves is, What does my pastor intend to
do? Will he ask me to surrender my guns, or not? I highly encourage
every reader who currently attends church to ask your pastor this
question RIGHT NOW.

Of course, the next question Christians need to ask themselves is,
What will I do if my pastor says he would ask me to surrender my guns
to the government? I suggest that every church member in America
settle this matter right now. And if you discover that your pastor
would indeed ask you to surrender your guns (or equivocate by saying
he would have to "pray about it") if asked to do so, you should
immediately leave that church and find a pastor who believes the Bible
and supports the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, if you do not
currently own a firearm, you might want to heed the words of Jesus and
go buy one.

So, once again, the burden of responsibility to help maintain
America's liberty rests upon the shoulders of the men in the pulpits.
Will we be preachers of truth or promoters of tyranny?

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so
does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column
is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web
site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin
for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in
scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless
otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon
address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

Happy Easter

He is risen!

 

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, New American Standard Bible)

Pastor Pleads The Case for Ron Paul

The religious right is dithering, trying to decide between a host of Republican candidates, both announced and assumed. One name they seem to overlook is Ron Paul. 

Talk show host and Baptist Pastor Chuck Baldwin ponders the reasons:
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.) (ed. If I'm not mistaken, reversing Roe v. Wade would simply put the question of abortion back in the hands of the states.)

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

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

Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell's Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR. 

For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative's conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Chuck Baldwin

Link to Chuck Baldwin -- Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul?

Disturbing Experience Sends Priest to Class

One priest began attending a course entitled  "Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation" after becoming unsettled while hearing the confession of one of his parishioners:

"Her voice changed, her face was transformed and she started speaking in a language that she did not know," he said. "I've met people who are suffering from this problem and it is not as rare as we might imagine."

Mein Kampf bestseller in Turkey

Link: WorldNetDaily: Mein Kampf bestseller in Turkey.