Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

March 13, 2016

Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

by Fjordman

Fjordman speaks the unspeakable.

(Editor’s Note: I first rolled this grenade into the room in December 2010 to gauge the reaction from readers. Now look at what has happened relating to Islam in the last two years. But does Islam pose a serious threat to any state that secedes and becomes a sovereign nation? Let us know your comments.)

On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab, an Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just before he could murder dozens of people.

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is a passionate promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an established part of European culture, stated that “We were extremely lucky… I mean minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very catastrophic.” Sweden’s intelligence agency and a news agency received an email with audio files in which a man called on “all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back.” He criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message warned that “now your children, daughters and sisters die like our brothers’ and sisters’ children die.”

We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self-appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third-largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, yet they still blow themselves up.

In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies.

Hassan Moussa, who has worked as an imam at the largest mosque in the city of Stockholm, has earlier been accused of spreading double messages. What he said in his harsh speeches in Arabic didn’t match the text as translated in Swedish. A journalist warned that “Sweden’s mosques are slowly but surely being taken over” by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the 2010 suicide bombing, Moussa’s recommendations for how to prevent similar events in the future involved giving more power to imams and having a “zero tolerance for Islamophobia.”

Prohibiting all forms of criticism or mockery of Islam and its Prophet is an essential part of sharia, Islamic religious law. According to Islamic historical sources, individuals such as the poetess Asma bint Marwan were killed by the followers of Muhammad for having done nothing other than mocking Islam. This then became a part of the Sunna, the personal example of Muhammad and his companions, which is the most authoritative source of Islamic law next to the Koran itself. It was for the same reason that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. Yes, mainstream, traditional Islam today stipulates that those who mock Islam deserve to be murdered. No other major religion on this planet dictates anything similar.

It sounds nearly unbelievable to the average person that one of the largest religions on Earth, which is “respected” by the United Nations and political leaders worldwide, can be that bad, but this is unfortunately true. Not only is this the case, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the UN, is teaming up with other dictatorships and African nations as we speak to ban “Islamophobia” across the world, also in the West.

Islam is more totalitarian than the most totalitarian ideologies that have ever existed in the Western world. Even Der Führer or Comrade Stalin never expected or demanded that every single man should copy all of their personal habits and their silly little mustaches, for which we should be eternally grateful. Islam, on the other hand, stipulates that all men everywhere and for all times should copy Muhammad’s personal habits and example in minute detail.

Islam is a creed which says that men should urinate like Muhammad and that Muslims should wage a war against all other men on the planet until they, too, urinate like their Prophet. This is a provocative way of putting things, yes, but theologically speaking it is not incorrect. While Muhammad was not divine he was, as some Muslims say, the “living Koran.” John L. Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path, one of the most pro-Islamic books in existence, states:

“Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions….His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”

According to sharia, non-Muslim dhimmis can on certain conditions be allowed to retain their lives under Islamic rule, provided that they remain totally submissive to Muslims at all times. Any perceived “insult,” however slight, could immediately trigger violent reactions. In practice, a mere rumor that anybody has done something which displeases Muslims can cause retaliations and murders. This is how Christians in Pakistan or elsewhere live on a daily basis, constantly fearful of Jihadist attacks, and this is how many Muslims want us to live as well. Meanwhile, our authorities, intellectuals and mass media continue to import people who are plotting to murder us while we have our genetalia screened and checked at our airports.

If a single non-Muslim says anything critical about Islam, his entire community can in principle be punished for this. Basically, this means that if one cartoonist in Germany, the USA or Denmark makes a cartoon mocking Muhammad, this could potentially trigger Jihadist terrorist attacks against his entire country for “waging a war against Islam,” because his “tribe” is held collectively responsible for his actions. This was exactly the Islamic logic behind Taimour Abdulwahab’s terror attack in Stockholm. There is no such thing as an individual in this culture; the tribe is everything. Muslims, being good hypocrites, are always the first following an Islamic terrorist attack to state that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few, yet this is precisely what their own laws prescribe for non-Muslims.

Before the general elections in 2006 the Swedish Muslim League, the largest Islamic organization in the country, published a long list where they not merely requested, but essentially demanded, separate family laws for Muslims; that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in the language of their original homeland. (The Swedish city of Malmö already has pre-school classes where all teaching is conducted in Arabic. This is “good for integration.”); a “mosque in every municipality,” built through interest-free loans made available by local municipalities to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect for” Muslims; separation between boys and girls in gymnastics and swimming education; and laws instating Islamic holidays as public holidays for Muslims. Swedes should also ensure that all Muslims get two hours off from work during the congregational Friday prayer every week and an Islamic burial ground available in every municipality in which there are Muslims. Last, but not least, they demanded that the authorities and the already heavily censored, pro-Multicultural mass media should take even stronger steps to combat “Islamophobia” in the general public.

These demands were rejected back then, but they will be repeated, not just in Sweden but throughout the Western world. As long as we have sizeable Muslim communities here this is inevitable. Muslims are not here to live in peace as equals; they are here to colonize, subjugate, harass and dominate us. Their holy book, the Koran, demands nothing less.

But if all of this is true, how can we coexist peacefully with Muslims in our countries? The short answer is that we cannot. No matter how much you appease them, it will never be enough. As a matter of fact, since they come from a culture which respects only brute force they will despise you as weak and become more aggressive if you try to reason with them.

Their religion also states that Muslims are the “best of peoples” – the true master race – and that they are destined by Allah to rule all mankind. They are filled with illusions of grandeur and superiority, yet the harsh reality is that their societies are lagging behind those of others. This constitutes an inversion of the natural order which can only have been caused by demonic actions and must be reversed at all costs. As long as they remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a religious duty for them to do so.

So why don’t you hear this from most Western political leaders or mass media? Because they are lying to you, plain and simple. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam; that nobody has yet managed to come up with a credible theoretical way to reform Islam; and that there are no practical indications of any softening or modernization of Islam actually taking place. Since the adherents of this creed in its present form are waging a war of annihilation against us and the civilization we have created, this leaves only one possible conclusion if we wish to retain our culture and freedom: Physical separation. Islam and those who practice it must be totally and permanently removed from all Western nations.

Potential objections can be raised to this solution. One is that it might provoke Muslims and trigger a world war. To this I will say that our mere existence as free and self-ruled peoples constitutes a provocation to them. Besides, we are already in a world war. Technically speaking, it started 1400 years ago, the mother of all wars. Against European civilization it has witnessed two main phases, the first one with the Arabs in early medieval times, and the second one with the Turks in early modern times. This is the third Islamic Jihad, and it has penetrated deeper into Europe than ever before because we don’t fight back. If the other guy walks up to you and starts punching you in the face then you are already in a fight, whether you want this or not. If you do not defend yourself properly then you have already lost.

Another objection is that expelling Muslims from the West would not end the war. They would merely continue from their original home countries, aided by missiles and modern technology. This could well be true. The separationist strategy does not imply that removing Islam from the West alone is all that will ever be required, only that this is the bare minimum that is acceptable. If Muslims remain aggressive, we retain the option of further actions, including directly targeting their holy cities of Mecca and Medina using conventional or non-conventional weapons. Having large numbers of Muslims in our societies is anyway very costly, and the aggressive fifth column in our midst will severely limit our freedom of action.

Finally, one could claim that the overall problem with the modern West is the general mass immigration and Multiculturalism promoted by our treasonous elites and that Islam merely constitutes a secondary infection. This is also partly true. No, just because Muslim immigration is especially bad does not mean that all other forms of immigration are unproblematic. Nevertheless, Muslims top the list over hostile aliens who do not belong in European or European-derived nations. The Islamic threat is real and needs to be dealt with.

The Serbian-American writer Serge Trifkovic, author of the book Defeating Jihad, has stated that the ongoing failure by their entrusted leaders to demographically protect European and European-derived nations constitutes the greatest betrayal in history. I am tempted to agree with him. In the end, the traitors and fifth columnists we have in our media and academia must be removed from power and replaced with people who are loyal to us and our nations.


Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

January 28, 2016

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism

by Russell D. Longcore

Secession, Immigration and Multiculturalism will give rise to societal problems as states secede from the Union. Better to start discussing this now rather than wait until the days after secession.

We who live in the USA…and in all the West…have had multiculturalism forced upon us since the 1960s. And while it sounds nice and friendly toward people that are different than us, there is a problem with it.

The problem is that some people who come to the USA have no intention of assimilating into the American culture. Some never learn the English language. And government eases the way for this behavior.

Most recently, America is faced with the immigration of so-called “refugees” from North Africa and the Middle Eastern nations. In many instances, these people are Muslims FIRST, and as Muslims, they are taught in the mosques that Western culture must be eliminated because all non-Muslims are infidels.

So, now what?

In my writings about The Free Republic of North America (aka FRONA), I have taken positions that promote maximum personal liberty and property rights for individuals. But I will admit openly that this issue of multiculturalism continues to cause me philosophical nightmares.

My first default position is to welcome any human being above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter.

I struggle with any other restrictions on citizenship. For example, should FRONA prohibit Muslims from citizenship or residency? We know up front that Muslims believe that all people that are non-Muslims are infidels, and that Islam should erase all other cultures from the earth. So every Muslim allowed to come to FRONA has either overtly or tacitly agreed with their religion’s teachings…else why be a Muslim? Therefore, knowing up front that every Muslim has the potential to take action against the FRONA government, the FRONA culture and the FRONA citzenry, should FRONA allow them to settle in our new nation?

One argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be that a person who has committed no offense against the People or the government is innocent, and should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Another argument for unlimited immigration and citizenship could be handled within the Charter. The Charter could be written with a clause with restrictions built in.

On the other side…would it be acceptable to simply prohibit ALL Muslims…Sunni, Shia or whatever…from residing in FRONA or becoming citizens? Doing so makes sure that people who are avowed to your destruction are not allowed to legally reside in FRONA. If FRONA prohibits Muslims, then a mechanism of a background check would have to be created to check out applicants prior to acceptance for citizenship.

If FRONA decides to ban Muslims from residency and citizenship, it would be necessary to remove all people of the Muslim religion from within FRONA’s territorial borders. Now we begin talking about deporting people who own property and/or businesses already existing in that state that becomes FRONA. This opens up another can of worms that is antithetical to individual liberty and property rights.

I do not see where FRONA can be pro-liberty and anti-liberty at the same time.

Therefore, at this time, I am re-stating my earlier position for FRONA, in which any person above the age of 18 years old who can pay the fee of one ounce of .999 silver to purchase one share of FRONA common stock and sign the Charter is eligible to become a FRONA citizen.

I am far more concerned with protecting individual liberty and property rights than any other single thing. I believe that if FRONA can be formed as the freest place on the planet, with sound money and a roaring economy…we will be so attractive to the rest of the world that many of the societal problems plaguing the rest of the world will be avoided and unknown in FRONA. And that includes the issue with Islam.

But if problems with Islam did arise, FRONA as a nation could handle it. Remember that there are plenty of nations around the world where roving men don’t rape women, blow themselves up in marketplaces, or set IEDs off that kill innocents. America has been so far immune to the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Islam. Muslims seem to blow each other up in their own nations, not here.

Whenever there is a societal issue that demands attention, ALWAYS DEFAULT TO LIBERTY. Remember that NO ONE has ever lived in a place like The Free Republic of North America. Let’s try LIBERTY first.

Who Should Be Washington’s Worst Enemy?

October 20, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADVERTISEMENT: Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a 4G network. No Contract! No credit checks, no deposits. ONLY $49 Per Month!! No Gotchas. Use your present phone, smart phone, or buy a new one. Transfer your present phone number FREE! Plus, you can make residual income if you refer this to others who sign up anywhere in the USA!! to: to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(This is an update of an article I wrote in 2009.)

There exists in America an organization that could easily challenge Washington for money…for allegiance…for dominance of human thought and human action. Through that organization, the widows and orphans would be cared for, the hungry fed, and the needy assisted. Further, the devotees to this organization would en masse refuse to enter the national military service. And that organization would evaluate every Federal law and regulation to see if those laws and regulations should be obeyed, simply ignored or purposefully violated.

What is that organization that could wield such awesome power and influence?

The Church.

The Church should be the worst enemy of the State. When I use the term “the church,” I mean nearly all organized religion. Most religions don’t espouse state worship in their sacred writings and doctrines.

When I use the term, “the State,” I mean all forms of human government, across the spectrum from anarchy to totalitarianism.

In Islamic countries, Islam sometimes IS the state. Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran are run by Muslim mullahs, and sharia law is used. Nations like Egypt, Pakistan and Morocco have governments influenced by sharia law, but still adhere to the rule of secular law. Some Islamic nations have declared themselves to be secular, and religious interference in governance is prohibited.

For today’s discussion, I’m going to concentrate on the Judeo-Christian traditions, which are the foundations of Western Civilization. So, because Judaism and Christianity are found in worship of the same God, these faiths will be held to the same standard as it relates to their relationship to the State.

The Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is about the Kingdom of God and Liberty. He merely tolerates mankind’s feeble attempts at governing. That’s probably why he is called King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

But if you look at history over the last 5,000 years, you will see repeated oppression of religion by the State. The State has always seen the church as direct competition for money, power and control over people. So, in order to escape persecution by the State, the church has made increasingly servile efforts to assuage the hostility of the State. The church has given its blessings to the most base, vile and tyrannical acts of the State in order to curry favor and the State’s blessing.


Think of it this way. If the schoolyard bully regularly beats you up for the funny clothes you wear, and you want the beatings to stop, you will either fight back or change clothes. If you want to go even further, and enjoy the acceptance of the bully, you will have to join the bully in some of his actions. Perhaps you’ll have to learn how to be a bully, too.

But, by learning and approving of the ways of the bully, the bully comes to understand that you are no longer a threat to him. Then you might enjoy an uneasy peace.

Israel began its descent into state worship when, around 1047BC they decided they needed a king like their neighbors. God told Samuel to tell them what a king would do to them in I Samuel 8:11-18:

11: This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12: And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13: And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14: And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15: And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16: And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17: He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18: And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Even when the prophet Samuel told them what a monarchy would do to them, they turned their back on God. So they got King Saul and a string of good and bad kings from then on. Even after their experiences of evil kings split the nation into Israel and Judah, both sides couldn’t give up on the idea of having kings rule over them.

It never got any better.

The Christian church solidified its state worship during the reign of Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century and has been increasingly worshipping the State in all its forms over the past 1,700 years. Kings, despots, tyrants and republics all felt the fawning love of the church.

The Catholic Church alternately fought and blessed the monarchies of Western Civilization for that 1,700 years, and still does so today. I’m not picking on the Catholics here, because the Catholic Church was synonymous with “Christendom” until just recently in history. They learned how to share power and money with the State. And when the Reformation swept across Europe, the new Reformers also licked the boots of the governments in power.

I hear all the comments from evangelicals about the government being ordained by God, and that Christians should obey the State. They usually refer to Romans Chapter 13 as their source. But I don’t find anything in the Bible that tells Christians to obey a State that is violating God’s Word. I do find verses like Acts 5:29: “…we should obey God rather than men.” These words were said by the Apostle Peter after the priests threw the apostles into prison for spreading the Good News.

Today’s Church is a willing accomplice of government in its ungodliness. Further, today’s Church helps keep its own membership subservient to the State through its teachings. This is exactly opposite of the mission on earth that the Church should be fulfilling.

To be true to the message of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, churches and synagogues would teach allegiance to only God, and to no other. They would reject the approval of the State and call the faithful into open rebellion against the State’s ungodly actions.

If churches and synagogues were doing their job, they would preach themes like this Top 10.5 Sermon Topics List:

1. The overarching premise that if an action is a sin and a crime for an individual, it is still a sin and a crime for a group of individuals. Political organization by no means affords immunity from sins and crimes committed.

2. Taxation as presently practiced by the State is theft by other means (thou shalt not steal) and is a combination of force and fraud.

3. Central banking is the method whereby the State steals the value of the money from the citizens through fractional reserve banking and fiat money. This also violates the Commandment “thou shalt not steal.” Fiat money violates Proverbs 11:1 – “A false balance is abomination to the Lord; But a just weight is his delight.” (Dollars actually supposed to be a weight of silver.) The Church could even go as far as creating an alternative money based in gold and silver to circumvent the use of the Federal Reserve notes.

4. Murder violates a biblical Commandment (thou shalt not kill) and is a crime, and is no less a crime when you wear a military uniform. The taking of a life in defense of life or property is not murder.

5. Military service: No person of faith should ever serve in the State’s military. Serving in the military of the State is to accept the State as a sovereign higher than God (thou shalt have no other gods before me). Serving in the military of the State forces the person of faith to have to decide to obey an unbiblical order or obey God’s Word.

6. Government commits crimes against its citizens every day through the laws it passes and enforces. The Church decides which will be obeyed and which will be ignored.

7. Pledging allegiance to the flag of the State is to place God in a subordinate position to the State (thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image…thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them)

8. When a church uses the corporate laws of the State as its chosen legal entity, it becomes subservient to that State.

9. The acceptance of the tax exempt status places the church subservient to the State, and is an abridgement of freedom, simultaneously giving up many of its God-given rights.

10. Vices, which may be sins, should not be made crimes.

10.5 Invading another sovereign nation is breaking the Tenth Commandment, “thou shalt not covet.” Any war other than a defensive war on your own soil violates God’s Word.

What does today’s obsequious, lickspittle Church teach the faithful? Here is the Top 10.5 List of Approved Government Themes:

1. Government service is honorable.
2. The Bible tells us to obey the government in Romans chapter 13.
3. Military service is honorable no matter what despicable acts are done. Soldiers are heroes that deserve to be supported no matter where they are deployed or what acts they commit.
4. Voting is your civic duty.
5. The US flag is always flown or displayed superior to all other flags. (but you’re not supposed to notice that this places God inferior to the State.)
6. Abortion is not all that big of a deal, and a woman should have the freedom to “choose.” Abortion is certainly not a big enough deal to openly rebel against the government.
7. Politics and political issues should not be discussed from the pulpits, for fear of losing the church’s tax-exempt status.
8. Pay your taxes obediently, even if the taxes are used to fund actions that violate God’s Word.
9. The United States is the greatest nation in history, and we celebrate Memorial Day and Independence Day by singing patriotic songs and honoring past and present military members.
10. There is a separation of church and state in the Constitution.
10.5 Most importantly, pay your tithes and pledges to the church so the church can continue to reinforce state worship.

The Church, properly fulfilling its mission on earth, would be as radical as Islam. But don’t look for that to happen. For The Church, the book of Exodus contains The Ten Suggestions. The Church has been the State’s toady for over 1,700 years. I rather doubt it will find its backbone any time soon.

In closing, think about how radically different our communities and our nation would be if these simple yet powerful principles had been taught from the pulpits over the past couple hundred years. I dare say that our states might more closely resemble the confederation of sovereign States found in 1776. The People, in whom are found the powers delegated and undelegated to government, would be the masters of government, rather than its slaves.

Secession is the only hope for mankind to enjoy individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly given, provided full credit is given.

The Shot Heard Round The World

April 23, 2012

By Chuck Baldwin

(Editor’s Note: This is a great article about the role of religion in the early days of the colonies. A good companion article is Who Should Be The State’s Mortal Enemy?)

April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans
as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate it as
enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful
that many Americans don’t even remember what happened on this day
back in 1775. For the record, historians call this day, “Patriot’s
Day.” More specifically, it was the day that the shot was fired that
was heard ’round the world. It was the day America’s War for
Independence began.

Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren,
Pastor Jonas Clark and his male congregants of the Church of Lexington (numbering 60-70) were the ones that stood with their muskets in front of the Crown’s troops (numbering over 800), who were on orders to seize a cache of arms which were stored at Concord and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock (who were known to be in the area, and who had actually taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home).

According to eyewitnesses, the king’s troops opened fire on the
militiamen almost without warning, immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen returned fire.

These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. This took place
on Lexington Green, which was located directly beside the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. Adams and Hancock were not taken. They owed their lives to Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen–albeit eight of those men gave their lives protecting Adams and Hancock.

According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who
died on Lexington Green: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley,
Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John
Brown, all of Lexington, and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.

By the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge,
hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific
battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon
retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two elements of American history are
lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was attempted gun confiscation by the British troops that ignited America’s War for
Independence, and 2) it was a pastor and his flock that mostly
comprised the “Minutemen” who fired the shots that started our
great Revolution.

With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to
honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of
the Pilgrims,” as one Colonial pastor’s descendent put it.

It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s
clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James
Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America that would not exist.

Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed, although one historian referred to Clark as a Trinitarian and a Calvinist. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence, and in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.

James Caldwell

James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The
Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em
Watts!” story.

During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the colonial militia
ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell galloped to
the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals,
threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em
Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts, of

The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah,
in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a
fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor
Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown
burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two
public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name.

John Peter Muhlenberg

John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock,
Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the
American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia,
Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes 3 to his congregation
He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a
time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past and
it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.

Muhlenberg later was promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental
Army, and later, major general. He participated in the battles of
Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

Joab Houghton

Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House
at worship when he received the first information regarding the
battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the
following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

“Mounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he
beckoned the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to
know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first, words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston; then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly, ‘Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?’ And every man in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William.
Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876,
rev. 1976)

Jonas Clark

As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of
the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day
that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.

On the One Year Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark
preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s
Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been
republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of
Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor,
Church of Lexington.”

Order the book containing Clark’s sermon at:

Of course, these four brave preachers were not the only ones to
participate in America’s fight for independence. There were
Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr.
John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina.
Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James
Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.

So many Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for
Independence that, at the conclusion of the war, President George
Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I
recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you
are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost
unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving
promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas
Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have
acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable
Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists.
The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918)

And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our
fight for independence, so many pastors throughout colonial America
preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits that the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment
(referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen
wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and
example of colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists
with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown
and win America’s freedom and independence.

I invite readers to visit my Black Regiment web page to learn more
about my attempt to resurrect America’s Black-Robed Regiment. Go to:

Black Regiment

This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers.
So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that
once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian
denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so
cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the
destruction of its liberties? Where are the preachers to explain,
expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ?
Where are the pastors to preach the truth about Romans chapter 13?

I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is
in the sad condition that it is in today is because the sermons
Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits deal mostly with
prosperity theology, entertainment evangelism, feelgoodism,
emotionalism, and Aren’t-I-Wonderful ear tickling! This milquetoast
preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” interpretation of Romans 13, have made it next to impossible to find Christian men with the courage and resolve to stand against the onslaught of socialism, corporatism, and, yes, fascism that is swallowing America whole.

America cut its spiritual teeth on the powerful preaching and
exemplary examples of men such as James Caldwell, John Peter
Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and, yes, Jonas Clark. We need them as much today as we did then–maybe more!

>i>Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at

Faiths and Public Affairs

March 2, 2012

by Tibor Machan

(Editor’s Note: This is the most thoughtful, well-written treatise about religion in the public sector that I have ever read. I wish I had written it.)

Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has made an impassioned pitch in favor of rejecting the famous doctrine of the separation of church and state. He made his position clear on the ABC-TV program, “This Week,” on Sunday, February 26: “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum noted. “The idea that the church should have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical of the objectives and vision of our country.”

Of course, the exact statement he made is sadly hyperbolic since no one has ever advocated that church should have no influence on the operations of the state or government. Religion clearly has influence through its role in the formation of individual opinions, which in a free country play a crucial role in guiding public affairs. As a matter of the faith of the citizenry, religion’s involvement in public affairs is ubiquitous.

The idea behind the church-state separation is that when it comes to public affairs or the official edicts of governments, these are not supposed to be based on church policies or doctrines but on the secular ideas of the country’s constitution, ideas that any human being is capable of grasping and criticizing, no matter his or her religion. Let us see what lies behind this position and why it is sound.

When we discuss political economy, resting one’s case on faith places one’s ideas on wobbly foundations. By “faith” is meant a mode of belief based on the will to accept or commit, often despite systematic evidence to the contrary, or on belief not based on supporting evidence of the sort available for systematic, organized, public scrutiny. Indeed, faith is often taken by its champions and adherents to be something extra rational. Its merit lies, supposedly, in the fact that it is not based on evidence or reason but often contradicts both. Thus it is harder to sustain – and it is this difficulty that is supposed to make it a noble achievement to have and keep such a faith. If it were a conviction or belief based on evidence and reason it would lack this element, or so some theologians and religious leaders maintain.

The problem with faith is that, especially concerning matters of public policy but even vis-a-vis personal and social problems, it is rather hopeless to expect congruence or agreement to arise among very different people with different experiences, traditions and religious convictions that are based on faith. How, then, can faith be used to reach common or public convictions?

Faith is a very private mental disposition. In many theological systems it is supposed to be at God’s discretion whether someone will have faith or not. Augustine, for example, saw it as something that people acquired by the grace of God. Within this tradition, human beings are in a sense impotent when it comes to gaining faith – they are either graced with it or not.

But in matters of importance to all people, to the citizenry as a whole, it is futile to rely on such a method for reaching understanding and convictions. Indeed, there is a virtual guarantee of discord when faith is invoked. It may be appreciated, in this light, why there are nearly 4,200 different religions in the United States alone and why so many of the public conflicts around the globe find much of their source in religious views, and why religion is something that many people refuse to debate or argue (since, again, one either has or doesn’t have it). The religious based conflicts across the globe occur mostly where religion and the public sphere are thoroughly intertwined.

To be sure, religion has been present for most of history. As George Orwell illustrates in his classic book and indictment of communism, Animal Farm, there is always a priest or minister around no matter what politics happen to dominate (represented by the omnipresence of the raven through his story). Thus, Roman Catholic and other churches didn’t even collapse under the self-proclaimed atheistic system of communism and managed to live peacefully within others.

The presence of religion in nearly all epochs and societies, however, is no argument for the truth of much of what these religions proclaim – after all, most societies adhere to widespread superstitions, such as astrology, as well as all kinds of dubious practices and institutions, which arguably rest on various false beliefs about the world and about how we all should live. The pervasiveness of these doesn’t render them true.

Nonetheless, it is probably because religions consider a good deal of what is important to human life, like codes of conduct that resonate so sufficiently with common sense, that they have staying power. And there is also the plain fact that secular philosophies haven’t been sufficiently attentive to ethics or morality – often claiming that these, too, along with the descriptive parts of theologies, are myths. This isn’t a credible view and religions have thrived by holding that they alone can provide people with ethics for guiding their lives.

There are also many heroic acts by religious people against various forms of tyranny. But these don’t render the general outlook of the heroes true. For example, Roman Catholic Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary opposed the Stalinist regime in his country, invoking grounds that any secular liberal thinker could appreciate. Lord Acton’s liberalism isn’t especially wedded to religion even though he himself was Catholic. Although the real concerns many religious people have about tyrannies and totalitarian regimes needn’t be based on any specifically religious convictions – unless, of course, everything one believes rests on those – the ethical leadership provided from within religion has been significant in fighting such systems.

The bottom line is that what makes us human, most of all, is that we use reason and need to do so to make headway in our daily lives. In a country fit for human survival and for thriving, religion can’t be a basis for public policy. That’s why resting beliefs on the common capacity to reason, instead of on faith, and the need to discuss with others how one should lead one’s life, has greater promise for peace and justice, especially in organized human communities inhabited by very different people.

So one crucial reason that religiously based public policies have dubious merit is that their justification can’t be examined along lines available to us in virtue of our humanity alone. A human community, as opposed to a sectarian or religious one, can’t rest its institutions on what arises from faith – especially not if those institutions aim to be considered fairly and openly by all those who might be citizens, including members of very different religious denominations as well as many who lack any such membership.

Nonetheless, in a multicultural, highly diverse society such as those in most of the advanced civilizations today, especially the famous melting pot that’s the United States of America, the realm of public affairs cannot be approached from a religious viewpoint. Doing that would necessarily result in constant internal conflicts that are in principle unresolvable.

Accordingly, Rick Santorum’s call for what would amount to a substantially theocratic society must be rejected by all reasonable citizens, especially those who realize that religion is vital to their own lives regardless of how little that religion is shared by their fellow citizens. The best defense of religion and its free exercise is not to allow any particular faith to become dominant via the political system.

Tibor Machan, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Auburn University and holds the R. C. Hoiles Endowed Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics at Chapman University.

© Copyright 2008 – 2012 The Daily Bell. All Rights Reserved.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

January 31, 2012

By Chuck Baldwin

Last weekend, Republican voters in South Carolina picked the candidate they want to be the GOP standard bearer for the November elections: Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich? Really? What did I miss? Or better, what did Republican voters in South Carolina miss?

What is not lost to virtually everyone who understands national politics is the fact that there is perhaps no State in the union where evangelical Christians have more influence within the State Republican Party than in South Carolina. For example, Greenville, South Carolina, is home to what could be regarded as the flagship university of evangelicalism, Bob Jones University. There are probably more evangelical churches, Christian schools, mission organizations, etc., per square mile in South Carolina than any State in the country. And the vast majority of them are politically active in GOP politics. So, when a GOP Presidential candidate wins South Carolina, you can be absolutely certain that he or she did so with the support and blessing from a sizeable number of evangelical Christians (and pastors) in the State.

In all candor, understanding the power and influence of evangelical Christianity in South Carolina Republican politics, Newt Gingrich’s victory in that State last week is extremely difficult for this writer to digest. I cannot think of a candidate that is more reprehensible to the values and principles that born-again Christians claim to embrace than Newt Gingrich!

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Have Christians (and other conservatives) had complete and total memory failure? To what problem could Newt Gingrich possibly be the solution (unless it’s the problem of Gold Diggers running out of good looking rich guys to sleep with)?

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

In the first place, Newt Gingrich is the personification of the word “globalist.” Gingrich is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Gingrich never saw a globalist agenda-item that he did not enthusiastically support such as: NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, FTAA, the North American Union (by whatever name it’s called at the moment), the NAFTA Superhighway, ad infinitum. Gingrich is as much committed to open borders as is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Gingrich is as committed to the advancement of the George Soros-sponsored Agenda 21 “green” initiatives as any person living today.

In the second place, Newt Gingrich’s actual record is fundamentally opposite his constant “conservative” rhetoric. Writing for The New American magazine, William Jasper reported, “During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state–while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the ‘homeless,’ businessmen, farmers, bankers, left-wing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991–$40 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991–$52.6 billion for agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992–$66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994–$250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.”

And let’s not forget that, after orchestrating the “Contract With America” that swept the GOP into a majority in both houses of Congress in 1994 (and promising to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and even eliminate five federal departments, including the Department of Education), it was Newt Gingrich that quickly abandoned those promises–which led to his eventual resignation following the 1996 elections, when voters fled the GOP in disgust after Gingrich’s compromises.

William Jasper also reported, “Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that Gingrich has run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that the National Director of TRIM James Toft was prompted to remark: ‘Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.’”

See William Jasper’s report HERE.

In the third place, if the current trend toward nationalizing law enforcement and turning America into a police state disturbs you, Newt Gingrich is the last person in the world you would want to elect President of the United States.

Devvy Kidd writes, “On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn’t vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt’s cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN’s Crossfire, ‘If it wasn’t for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn’t have a crime bill.’

“Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition ‘threw’ the game, failing to challenge the bill’s fundamental flaw–that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties–and focused instead on ‘pork’ in the bill. ‘That crime bill stank to high heaven,’ charged Pat Buchanan. ‘It federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states.’”

See Devvy Kidds’ report HERE.

The contents of Newt Gingrich’s record in this report are merely the tip of the old proverbial iceberg. Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet; he makes Herman Cain look like the angel Gabriel. And this is the man Christians and conservatives in South Carolina want to be the next President of the United States?

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Ok, now let’s really get down to brass tacks. One reason why Gingrich won in South Carolina (and might win in Florida) is because many Christian voters will not vote for Mitt Romney, because Romney is a Mormon; and they won’t vote for Ron Paul, because he’s–well–Ron Paul.

Of course, many Christians voted for Rick Santorum, which explains his third-place finish. Santorum has built his entire campaign on trying to convince Christian conservatives that he is “their” man by talking up the hot button issues that social conservatives tend to focus on. But Santorum is just another G.W. Bush-type big-government neocon whose Senatorial record clearly shows that he votes with the big-government agenda the vast majority of the time. Some could even argue that Santorum is the elitists “conservative” Manchurian Candidate to pull votes away from Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the one man the elitists fear the most and will do anything to defeat.

Now, to Mitt Romney. Let me go on record, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney either, but it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. Absolutely nothing! I know a Mormon man who was a candidate for the US House of Representatives in the State of Utah whom I would support and vote for (for any office) in a heartbeat. His name is Scott Bradley. Scott is one of the most principled constitutionalists I have ever met.

Whether a candidate for public office is a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal is absolutely immaterial to whether or not I vote for him or her. The primary responsibility of a President (or any other civil magistrate) is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and to secure the rights and liberties of the American citizenry. That’s it! It is no skin off my nose where he or she goes to church, or even if he or she goes to church. It doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether they quote scripture or claim to be a Christian. What matters is that he or she honors their oath of office to defend the Constitution and the people’s liberties.

And as everyone should know by now, Mitt Romney’s track record in Massachusetts, from a constitutional point of reference, is absolutely abysmal. In fact, Romney’s Massachusetts’s health care monstrosity was the model for ObamaCare. In almost every discernable constitutional criterion, Mitt Romney falls short. And that’s why I won’t vote for Mitt Romney! In fact, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for the exact same reason I won’t vote for Newt Gingrich. (To his credit, however, at least Mitt Romney doesn’t have a passel of bimbos hiding under his bed.)

I have said it all over America, and I’ll say it again: I would rather vote for an unbeliever who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will not preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Next, let’s talk about Ron Paul. Many Christians all over America have foolishly rejected the candidacy of Ron Paul. They have done this for reasons which I will outline here.

“Ron Paul is not pro-life,” many Christians purport.

Of course, this statement is laughable. As a long-term US House member from Texas, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The so-called pro-life GOP in Washington, D.C., had several opportunities to pass this Act when it held power in both houses of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006.

Had it passed, Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have done two things: 1) it would have declared unborn babies to be human beings under the law, 2) it would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court under Article. 3. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would have effectively overturned the infamous Roe. v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has never performed an abortion; but he has delivered more than 4,000 babies; he has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in the US Congress–but he’s not “pro-life”?

Newt Gingrich, as speaker of the House, did absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers domestically and internationally from receiving US taxpayer dollars. In fact, while Gingrich was Speaker of the House, taxpayer funding for abortion providers increased dramatically! Neither has he ever supported or promoted the Sanctity of Life Act, but since he “says” he’s pro-life, many Christians vote for Gingrich and not Paul?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I cannot support Ron Paul because he says he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a sin or not,” say many Christians.

Most readers know that I have been a minister of the Gospel for over 35 years. My convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality are well known. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from when I say that whether or not Ron Paul has a personal question as to whether homosexuality is a religious or biological issue has absolutely nothing to do with his fitness to be President of the United States. Absolutely nothing! We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.

Dr. Paul’s personal religious belief is not the issue. The issue is his fidelity to constitutional government. What Christians seemingly do not understand is that constitutional government does more to protect their God-given Natural rights than all of the religious rhetoric of all the politicians of the entire country put together!

Dr. Paul understands the nature of government and the nature of liberty. And he is committed to returning government to its rightful jurisdictional authority Dr. Paul knows that the states and local communities are the best protectors of the liberties and the values of the people–including the values relating to aberrant sexual behavior within those communities and states–NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (Listening to many so-called “conservatives,” one may get the idea that they would be fine with doing away with independent statehood altogether and letting the central government in Washington, D.C., run everything. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were a wiser lot and emphatically left the bulk of governing authority to the states.) For example, if the State of Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, that’s Nevada’s business. And if Montana wants to make prostitution illegal, that is Montana’s business. If Florida wants to make medical marijuana illegal, that’s Florida’s business. If, however, Montana wants to legalize medical marijuana, that’s Montana’s business. Frankly, it is none of Washington, D.C.’s business either way! Ron Paul understands that.

Look at all the federal mandates that states and communities are implementing contrary to the values and belief systems of the citizens of the respective states and communities. That would not happen if Washington, D.C., would butt out of our affairs and let us govern ourselves. And if Massachusetts and California want to deprive their citizens of their God-given liberties, the people of those states can either remove those governments from power or move to a State where liberty is protected. But at least there would be some states standing in liberty to which one could go. As it is today, the entire country is under the heavy hand of usurpation and oppression due to the fact that, outside of Ron Paul and a few others in Washington, D.C., hardly anyone inside the Beltway believes in constitutional government.

Plus, look at the inconsistency of trying to elect civil magistrates by some sort of religious litmus test: Dr. Paul has been married to his wife, Carol, for over 50 years without the first scandal involving immoral activity, but because of a personal question regarding a religious issue, many Christians cannot vote for him? But Newt Gingrich can have so many extramarital affairs that he probably cannot even count them all, and yet his personal view of religion and morality are found acceptable to many Christians?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I can’t vote for Ron Paul, because he is ‘anti-Israel,’” many Christians say.

Here are the facts: Dr. Paul has a Jeffersonian philosophy regarding foreign entanglements. He believes that we should trade freely with all nations, have diplomatic relations with all nations, and live at peace with all nations as much as is possible. He believes that Israel is a sovereign state and, therefore, has the right to determine its own affairs without Washington, D.C., dictating how, when, and what Tel Aviv can and cannot do for its own peace and security. He believes we need to butt out of everybody’s business and let sovereign states conduct their own internal affairs. He believes the US military should be used to protect the territory and people of the United States of America and should not be the world’s policeman or the puppet of the Security Council at the United Nations. But somehow, that is an unspiritual philosophy and many Christians can’t support him?

Newt Gingrich wants to continue the Wilsonian foreign entanglement philosophy by continuing to send troops to fight undeclared, unconstitutional wars; by continuing to entrap and enrage foreign capitols into conflicts that only serve the interests of international bankers and the military-industrial complex; by continuing to use Israel as a puppet to provoke conflict in the Middle East that only serves the purpose of advancing an international New World Order, and somehow this is seen as “spiritual” by many Christians who will support and vote for him?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

If the Republican Party has a death wish, they will nominate Newt Gingrich as their Presidential candidate. Gingrich is a snake-oil salesman; his words are absolutely meaningless; he has the morals of an alley cat; and he will sell America’s sovereignty to an international New World Order and turn our country into a police state. Christians, of all people, should know better.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

© Chuck Baldwin

Evangelicals, Politics, and the Kingdom of God

October 27, 2011

by William L. Anderson

Because the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks fell upon a Sunday, it hardly was surprising that the incident was recognized in many churches in the United States. Americans are not alone in commemorating anniversaries of important events, but from what I saw the 9/11 services in many evangelical churches went beyond simple commemoration, moving into the infusion of Christianity with the American State, something the ancients once called syncretism.

Before going further regarding the relationship of American evangelicals with the U.S. State, I will point out that evangelicals hardly are the only churchgoers in this country that mix the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Mammon. As one who receives the regular emails from Sojourners, which tends to represent the thinking of the “liberal” American churches, I can see how millions of people who are part of those religious circles are taught that the American Welfare State IS the Kingdom of God, and that the so-called intention of any law intended to further that State equates with directives from the Bible.

(One has to remember, however, that liberal American churches, while giving the Bible some sort of mystical authority without really believing what it says, hold to very different standards of beliefs than do evangelicals. Theological liberals tend to speak in religious languages that manage to say a lot of things that reveal little actual belief, with language used not to describe something, but rather to hide what liberals do not believe. For the most part, a vision of a socialist and welfarist America – the original vision of American Progressives of more than a century ago – has captivated the pulpits and the seminaries of their denominations. If they believe their reading of Scripture can be mixed into that vision, then Scripture is acceptable, and anything else is ignored or described in such vague terms as to make it meaningless.)

The focus of this commentary, then, is not upon the theological liberals who long ago abandoned historical Christianity for Progressive Statism. Instead, I am looking at the evangelicals who have abandoned historical Christianity for their own version of Progressive Statism, embracing the religion of “American Exceptionalism,” as though it were the essence of the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, I realize that what I am writing will make me very unpopular with people who claim to be following Christ, but Christianity is not a popularity contest and I believe that evangelicals have so lost their way when it comes to matters of Church and State that they are in danger of going the way of the theological liberals, who have become religiously irrelevant.

I recently spent nearly a month in Latvia, a small, Baltic independent country that was swallowed by the former Soviet Union for half a century. Although less than 10 percent of Latvians even attend church (apparently, communism did have its influences over time), those that do go tend to be quite active, and my wife, the girl we are adopting, and I went to a relatively new church while we were in that country.

One thing I noticed was the lack of political influences in that church. There was no Latvian flag outside or inside the building, even though there were church flags on the flagpoles, even though Latvians, like many from the Baltic countries, tend to be quite nationalistic. (They threw off an oppressor, the U.S.S.R., only two decades ago, and with very little bloodshed.) There was no mixing of Christianity and “Latvianism” during the services, which I cannot say is always the situation in the USA. (My church does not have flags of any country flying outside or displayed in the sanctuary or elsewhere in the building, so I must make sure not to make blanket statements.)

Why is that so? One reason, I believe, involves the religious roots of the United States. We are fond of saying things like “America was founded on religious freedom” and the like, although it is clear from even a cursory reading of U.S. History that while some people did seek to be able to practice their religion here after being persecuted in Europe, nonetheless religious freedom on these shores was a spotty thing.

We also hear that the USA was founded “as a Christian country,” and I remember hearing a talk from someone who believed that had the authors of the U.S. Constitution made it clear that this country was “Christian,” that somehow things would be different today. That really is nonsense; for that matter, a number of European countries at one time officially were “Christian” nations, and today none of those things matter, as no place in the world is as secular as Europe today.

However, the connection between historical Christianity and the effect it should have upon the actions of those that govern us was changed permanently in the United States during the 19th Century, first with Unitarianism and then with Progressivism. The political actions of both liberal and conservative “evangelicals” today are reflective of the secular, state-embracing political philosophies that rose during the 1800s and early 1900s, not the Christianity that was practiced by the Early Church, and certainly not of the Bible.

I cannot emphasize that point enough. When American evangelicals launch campaigns to deal with attempts to outlaw the “under God” portion of the Pledge of Allegiance, they are not preserving religious freedom, nor are not paying homage to the ideals of liberty that inspired many of the founders of this nation. Instead, they are endorsing a pledge created by a socialist who despised the founders of this country and who hated the views that the framers of the U.S. Constitution had on law and the state. Indeed, the Pledge of Allegiance is the antithesis of all of those ideals upon which conservative evangelicals claim to be supporting and it is collectivist and Progressivist to the core. Yet, because it has the phrase “under God,” Christians are willing to engage in what only can be idolatry and pledge their troth to another god.

Having grown up in the conservative evangelical subculture and still being part of it, I have picked up some insights as to why people who believe in God and who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible have sold out to the State. The answers are more complicated and nuanced than one might expect to read in a publication like the New York Times, which treats evangelicals as though they were alien invaders who have no right even to exist in our society.

Because I am dealing with the modern evangelicals, I will not cover the influence of the Unitarians of the 19th Century, except to say that they were part of nearly every major advancement of State power, including the public school movement in Massachusetts, and the Civil War. Certainly, by the end of the 1800s, the Unitarian influence began to wane, as theological liberalism took hold in the major Protestant denominations.

It is not hard to understand why theological liberals embraced the Progressive agenda of expansion of State power and the undermining of doctrines such as natural rights, as well as the viewpoint that law should be a “positive” force in making people engage in specified public duties. (This is as opposed to law being a check on those in power; Progressives wanted the law to advance government power, not restrain it.)

Liberals by 1900 had given up on the historical doctrines of Christianity, including Creation, the Fall, and Redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, liberals decided that while they did not believe the Biblical events actually happened, the purpose of Christianity should be to create a “Heaven on earth” through social legislation. The “purpose” in life would be the implementation of “good works,” but good works done through the actions of the State and the “experts” employed in government bureaucracies.

The liberals have changed neither their message nor their mission. They have embraced nearly every totalitarian movement that promised “free healthcare,” including the notorious and murderous regime of Pol Pot at the height of its terror. Today, they champion environmentalism, welfarism, and every government program that has been created in the name of “helping the poor.” No matter how many times government fails and no matter how many times socialist dictatorships are exposed, the liberals will continue to draw their water from the same polluted well, and nothing ever will change.

The evangelicals, however, have taken a different path but have ended at the doorstep of Statism as have their liberal counterparts. Although evangelicals did not openly become involved in the modern scourge of partisan politics until about 1980, they did embrace Progressivism as tightly as did the liberals, and there are many reasons why that happened.

First, Progressives promoted Prohibition, and that was the cause that allowed the theological liberals and conservatives to break bread together, although they did not follow exactly the same paths to Prohibition. The liberals tended to be tied to the wealthy Progressives, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (Rockefeller contributed much of the money for the construction of the Riverside Church in Manhattan, which even today is a center of theological liberalism and leftism. He also was a major supporter of Union Theological Seminary, which was one of the early seminaries to promote the “Social Gospel.”)

Theological conservatives, on the other hand, were concentrated among the middle and lower-income groups on the economic ladder, and they could see the destructive effects of alcoholism upon individuals and families. Indeed, the leading evangelist of the day, Billy Sunday, was a major promoter of Prohibition, although he hardly had the same influence as did the wealthy Progressives, who believed that making alcohol illegal would help create a class of people that could be better directed by the “experts” of the State.

Second, because the evangelicals (at that time, called “Fundamentalists”) tended to be less-wealthy than theological liberals, the Populist-Progressive message had a lot of appeal to them, and Progressive politicians such as Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman and Theo Bilbo were able to take advantage of their resentment. These men also pitched their Progressivism in a virulent racism that created a syncretistic Christianity that built a racially-based foundation of belief. In that set of beliefs, one could resent people of another race, blame them for one’s own ills, and have it blessed by both the church and the authorities. (Fundamentalists held onto their racial separatism and were the last of the Christian groups to admit blacks into their churches and schools. Many of them cited the non-existent “Curse of Ham” in the book of Genesis as the basis of their beliefs and this is not the only time that Fundamentalists have misused passages of Holy Scripture to push viewpoints that are not Biblical.)

I emphasize the Progressive Era because this was the time that the modern dichotomy was set between the Fundamentalists and the Theological Liberals, and it was the time when the patterns for both groups were determined. It also is the time when many of the hymns that appear in Fundamentalist hymnals were written, a time when churches cheered on America’s military ventures in Cuba and the Philippines and in Europe.

Since that time, both Liberals and Fundamentalists (now under the overall umbrella of evangelicals, although the term also includes people who would disclaim any Fundamentalist ties) continue to embrace Progressivism and outright statism. For the liberals, the State itself functions as God, or at least it is the main conduit through which God acts. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have a more complex relationship with the American State.

As Laurence Vance has noted in numerous articles, the evangelicals (or conservatives in that camp) tend to have a near-worshipful view of the U.S. Armed Forces. They also are near-united in having views that abortion-on-demand not only is evil, but should be outlawed, and most of them who are active in anti-abortion movements believe the outlawing should be done via an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Ron Paul’s belief that an amendment is not the right thing to do, given the constitution’s separation of powers doctrines, tends to be marginalized by the evangelical conservatives, but more on Dr. Paul later.)

From the Progressive Era well into the 1970s, the conservative evangelicals tended to support whatever was “American,” although they really were not tied to either major political party. Southern evangelical conservatives tended to vote for Democrats (as did liberals), and evangelicals from the rest of the country were somewhat split. If there is a ground zero for modern evangelical political involvement, it came not (as some might think) with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court forced all states to legalize abortion on demand, but rather the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter as president.

Carter was the first president in my memory to lay claim to the “born again” criteria that is essential to the evangelical experience. Because evangelicals really are a minority in this country, they tend to grasp onto celebrities, sports figures, and other public people who say they are Christians. For example, when Gerald Ford became president after Richard Nixon’s resignation, Christianity Today ran an article asking of there was “A Christian in the White House” because it was rumored that Ford was a practicing believer.

Evangelicals in droves voted for Carter, but they soon were disappointed in him. For one, the Democratic Party that Carter represented was not the party that many evangelicals had supported post-World War II. This was the party of Ted Kennedy and George McGovern. It was the party of militant support for abortion on demand, and it was the party of the very intellectuals and Theological Liberals that absolutely despised evangelicals. While the Democrats did not mind having evangelical votes for Carter, they let it be known that they did not want these “religious fanatics” in their party. Thus, whatever evangelical support Carter might have had, the Democrats deliberately drove out the conservatives.

Second, the Carter presidency was a time of high unemployment and high inflation, and his legacy was one of failure. (I wrote a revisionist piece on the Carter presidency several years ago and noted that he did a number of good things during his stay in office, but that neither he nor the Democrats have wanted to take credit for them because they involved creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs, which meant that some people might have become rich in the process.)

Ronald Reagan was the first candidate of either party to gain the overt endorsements of groups openly tied to evangelicals. The late Jerry Falwell, then the president of Liberty University, started a group called Moral Majority that laid out much of what would be the governing principles for both Republican and (ironically) Democratic administrations since that time.

The Religious Right, as the MM and other such groups were called, wanted to see more people in prison, a ramped up war against drugs, more overseas U.S. military ventures, and more powers granted to the police. While supporting limited individual gun rights and cuts in tax rates, the Religious Right gave some lip service to limited government, but in the end the expansion of the Warfare State, the refusal to cut back on the Welfare State, and the growing moves to support militarization of the police ultimately resulted in what we have in this country: the Warfare-Welfare-Police State.

The U.S. prison population, which stood at about 300,000 when Reagan was elected, has mushroomed to more than 2.1 million, a quarter of the incarcerated people on the globe and by far the highest number for a single nation. Never in the history of the USA has it been easier for someone to be arrested and charged with a “crime” that not long ago would not have been considered a legal transgression. Furthermore, with their slavish desire for state-sponsored executions, and their view that police and prosecutors should have a “free hand” to “do their jobs,” we have seen an explosion of police and prosecutorial misconduct for which there is little or no legal accountability, much less moral accountability.

There are many reasons for this, but I firmly hold that one of the main reasons has been the renewed vigor of direct involvement in politics by conservative American evangelicals. With their rules-based religious beliefs and their religious devotion to “American Exceptionalism,” American religious conservatives have managed to create the Police State that slowly but surely is being turned against them.

I hardly believe that only conservative evangelicals are to blame. After all, Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are not Christian conservatives, nor is Barack Obama and certainly not the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, the Progressive style of governance that is so destructive has been enhanced by the Religious Right, which looks for a “law enforcement” solution to nearly everything and operates upon the mistaken belief that the police always will do the right thing.

The current political season does not offer any change. Ron Paul still is reviled among Religious conservatives, even though he is pro-life and wants to preserve religious freedom. However, Dr. Paul is not an adherent to a belief in a magical “American Exceptionalism” and has strongly criticized American military adventures abroad, something that never will endear him to the Christian Right.

American liberty is rapidly disappearing and the Religious Right has played an important role in empowering the worst among us. This was not supposed to be the case, but whenever people seek to impose the Kingdom of God through politically-sponsored violence, the sad results are inevitable. The United States of America is not the Kingdom of God, nor is it the “Shining City on a Hill.” It is simply a country whose political leaders decided long ago that individual liberty should be replaced by collectivism, and the Christian conservatives were there to answer the call.

William L. Anderson, Ph.D., teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services.

Copyright © 2011 by

Contentment Without Religion

September 28, 2011

by Russell D. Longcore

An undercurrent of comments began after I ran Laurence Vance’s article Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers? One reader calling himself “Anubis” (the jackal-headed Egyptian god) started it by commenting “Another reason I’ve become an atheist. If there was a God he would…”

I took the bait and replied “Being an atheist is unintelligent and flies in the face of reason. Being a-religious makes sense. You can acknowledge God’s existence and have a relationship with Him without embracing any particular religion.”

“Nathan McMurray” added this: “Careful Russ, you don’t know the specifics of why this reader chose atheism over theism. If it was based on “unintelligent” presuppositions then yes, his choice would be unintelligent and, therefore, fly in the face of reason. But there are many of us atheists that have examined the facts of the various Holy Scriptures and found that none of them point to anything that would resemble an all-knowing creator entity; much less an entity that has taken a keen interest in a certain species of upright walking apes and with whom they copulate. At best, all anyone can say with certainty is they are a hopeful agnostic.”

Then Richard, in the choir loft, said “Have you not read or heard that Christ brings liberty to the spiritual slave? Those who are at liberty are bound by duty to follow Christ, not chains.” Hhhmmm. Those at liberty are bound?

The stage is set, and I haven’t written about spiritual issues in quite a while. I can only write about secession so much. At some point…which I’m beginning to think I’ve already reached…there is not much more to say about secession until the triggers occur. So an article about living happily without religion seems controversial enough to get me writing again.

Here is the theme of this article: A human being can live a life filled with happiness, contentment and meaning WITHOUT religion. And that same person may have a vibrant, deep relationship with God without religion. I contend that it is actually easier to live a meaningful spiritual life without religion.

To Nathan, I say: What “facts” have you examined in Holy Writ? Can anything from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 be considered proven facts? I don’t mean the dates and rulers, like when Darius the Mead was on the throne. It doesn’t take much to line up a story with a kingdom. Nobody’s basing their world view and preconceptions about God on the handy dates in Biblical stories. That’s all small stuff. But they ARE betting their lives on all the rest of the stuff in the Bible that’s simply been made up over the last 6,000 years.

It’s the big stuff that I can’t swallow any more. The entire account of creation. The existence of Satan. The Exodus. The parting of the Red Sea. The giving of The Law on stone tablets. Taking laps around the Sinai for 40 years. Old Testament stories about the children of Israel, and strange prophecies. All of the stories about Jesus in the Four Gospels. The prophecies in The Revelation. Heaven and Hell. Sin and salvation. And the ridiculous ways that Christians explain the things that their God either does or doesn’t do in their daily lives.

The Bible is widely considered to be the Word of God. Why? Because it says so…in the Bible. It is its own reference material…it takes its authority from itself. Think how counter-intelligent that is. I am X because I say so. The Bible is widely touted to be THE Truth…ultimate truth…for the same reason…simply because the writers who were included wrote that it was so.

How Did The Bible Become The Bible?

The Canon of Scripture, meaning the compilation of the sixty-six books of the Bible’s present form, came to be as a result of a simple majority vote among the bishops of the Christian Church at the Council of Laodicaea in 364AD. There were another 44 books circulating in the Christian world that did not make the cut. Is that any way to determine truth? By a popular vote? Most of the books circulating around Christendom were written decades or centuries before 364AD. And each of the Gospels was written decades after the writers walked with Jesus in his ministry. Let’s see you write out incidents and conversations you had 20 years ago or more…verbatim. Why do you trust the judgment of a bunch of bishops to determine which books were God-breathed and which were not?

Holy writ is only deemed holy by its adherents. To wit, Bible-believing Christians reject the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Book of Mormon as heresies.

There is a writer that I recommend for a supplemental perspective on the veracity of the Bible. Lysander Spooner was a Deist and attorney who wrote extensively about religion and politics in the mid-1800s. He has written “The Deist’s Reply to the Alleged Supernatural Evidences of Christianity.” In this five-chapter work, he delivers a withering argument against the very foundations of Christianity. I challenge you to read his work and refute it.

You can find the work and read it for free at: Lysander Spooner

Also, read “The Deist’s Immortality, and an essay on man’s accountability for his belief.”

And What About The Central Character?

Today’s Christians and Catholics take it for granted that Jesus is God. But in the first three CENTURIES after Jesus’ life, there was NO consensus in Christendom that Jesus was God. And in the early 4th Century, the division came down to two clerics. Athanasius held that Jesus was the Son of God. Arius held that Jesus was “a” son of God, like others mentioned in the Old Testament books. The fight over the deity of Jesus Christ was splitting Christendom. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, one of those handy votes was taken, and the Athanasians…the pro-deity camp…won the vote. Is that any way to determine the deity of the individual upon whom you rely for your soul’s very salvation? For a revealing book about the Council of Nicea, read ”When Jesus Became God,” by Richard Rubenstein.

What if it is all myth?

For the first 55 years of my life, I could not…would not…even entertain the offhand, errant, blasphemous thought that the Bible could be wrong…or just not THE truth. Then some events happened in my life that caused me to rethink everything about ultimate reality. Most of the people I have ever encountered think the Bible is the word of God. But are you strong enough in your faith, or beliefs, to really honestly merely THINK about the possibility that all religion is myth? It’s no sin to doubt, and no sin to think controversial thoughts.

If you consider that all religions are myths, you will be forced to entirely retool every world view you presently hold. You’ll have to deal with:

• Who and what God is
• The Creation story
• The existence of Heaven and Hell
• Satan and evil
• The life of Jesus
• The “miracles” and ministry of Jesus
• Christmas
• Easter
• Sin and salvation
• What Christianity means…and doesn’t mean
• World history in light of myth
• The entire Bible not being God’s Word
• Your family’s reaction to you
• ENORMOUS peace of mind
• No more false guilt

Why Does Mankind Want Religion?

Religion is man’s attempt to explain the origins of himself and the universe. It’s all flowing from mankind out and back toward itself in an endless loop that never requires verification…only faith and belief. It started with those that worshipped the nature around them, and has evolved over time as mankind has learned more about himself and the universe. But think about this: why would you worship anything at all? It is because the human brain seems to have the ability to want to attribute meaning to everything. I don’t think my Doberman Kaiser or my cat Sam spend much time looking for meaning in their lives.

If God’s energy is in everything, then is everything God? There are two schools of thought. First, God created everything outside of himself, and creation stands extant of Him. God is here, and creation is over there. Second, God created everything of himself, and so the pure energy of God that holds all created things together unites all of creation inside God. The first school of thought represents Western Civilization. The second represents Eastern Civilization.

God’s face is obscured by the opaque screen of religion. Show most people in the world the Michaelangelo rendering of God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and you’ll have what most people today think God looks like. In like manner, most people have their concept of Hell and the horned, red Devil from Dante’s Inferno, written in the 14th Century. Each religious tradition, creed, cult or church builds elaborate rules and regulations (dogma) about what human behavior is acceptable to God and what is not acceptable. And the more preposterous and authoritarian the dogma, the more faith and belief
(and adherence) are required. But the Creator is not defined by religion, only diminished. He is brought down to human level of energy, we are not elevated to his energy level.

This Creator of all but Himself has always had the power to manifest Himself to every human being that has ever lived upon this planet. If God truly wanted a relationship with mankind, or any man individually, he could simply reveal Himself. If and when God does reveal Himself to man, all “religion” will of necessity cease, as man will no longer need to reach out to God or try to explain a being he cannot experience with his five senses. Belief will be unnecessary, since mankind will KNOW God. The most jaded, cynical scientist and atheist, faced with a real God, could no longer hold onto their worldviews.

All of the rules and regulations found in the Bible, and the silly games attributed to the Creator, are an insult to the character of an infinite Being. God does not need to sneak around and play complicated faith games with humans if he desires human relationships. Accepting Him at the level of his existing universal revelation is a superior way to set aside faith and actually KNOW God.

ALL RELIGION requires you to believe things that cannot be proven. In Hebrews Chapter 11 it says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This doesn’t say you can know a thing, but says that you can hope for a thing and your faith is the substance you get. I don’t know about any of you, but I would much rather operate my life and my core worldview based upon things that I can KNOW, not simply things I must believe. Knowing is always a higher level of energy than believing.

The GOOD NEWS…THE GREAT NEWS…is that God actually DID reveal himself to mankind through his very creation.

I believe that God has revealed these seven attributes about Himself in creation:

1. Creativity
2. Kindness
3. Love
4. Beauty
5. Expansiveness
6. Abundance
7. Receptivity

To learn more about these seven attributes of God, read ”The Power of Intention,” by Dr. Wayne Dyer.

I most heartily recommend the Deist worldview to seekers of truth. It is the worldview that requires the least amount of faith and manufactured guilt, reveals the most truth about God and the cosmos, retains meaning for human existence, and makes the most sense for those who aspire to maximum individual liberty.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Flash Editorials September 24, 2011

September 24, 2011

By Russell D. Longcore

International: BIG controversy coming to a head about Palestinian statehood. Can’t think of a reason why they should be prevented from organizing a new nation, and can’t think of a reason why the Israelis and DC should have veto power. Oh yea…I remember now. Washington and Tel Aviv don’t like Hamas leadership, even though Hamas was lawfully elected to office. Perhaps if the Palestinians got statehood, they would stop trading mortars and rockets with Israel. And before Washington labels Hamas “terrorists,” let’s ask Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis who THEY consider the top terrorist nation in the world. And could somebody in the damn earth remember that PM Yitzhak Rabin, PM Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan were all considered terrorists back in 1948 when they were fighting for a state of Israel?

The Nation: So President Barry wants the rich to pony up more tax money, stating that they need to pay “their fair share.” The top 10% of the earners already pay 70% of the income taxes collected, while the bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes whatsoever. But we all know this ain’t about fairness, it’s about redistributing wealth at the end of a gun. The only fair tax is a sales tax, and DC will NEVER change to the sales tax. Will Congress have the balls to tell Barry ‘no’? Just as soon as you see pigs flying around the Rotunda.

Religion: Politics meet religion in Ohio – The Ohio legislature recently passed the so-called “Heartbeat Bill,” named because it outlaws abortion at the first detectable heartbeat of a human fetus. Now the bill must be passed by the Ohio Senate before it can be signed into law. It will be the most restrictive abortion law in the nation if passed. Remember folks…this is not about reproductive rights. You have all the reproductive rights you deserve…right up to the instant you get pregnant. Then your rights properly morph into responsibility…which is what REAL rights always do anyway. This is about whether or not it’s OK to kill another human being because its existence is inconvenient. Natural law bestows the right to life and NONE of us get here without some help. Good luck, Ohio. Godspeed. About 50 million lives have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The oldest of them would be nearly 40 years old now…paying into Social Security and Medicare. OOOPS. Unintended consequences suck, don’t they?

Economy: This week’s new unemployment claims are at 423,000. According to The US Department of Labor, the total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending September 3 was 6,889,058. But there have been no less than 22 weeks in a row in which the number of new claims was above 400,000. That’s at least 8.8 million NEW claims just in the last five months. Who ya gonna believe?

Business: Moody’s Corporation, the financial ratings service, downgraded the credit ratings of mega-banks Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup, saying that Washington is now “less comfortable” with the idea of further bailouts for troubled lenders. The banks face an uphill battle to comply with the Dodd-Frank law’s requirements. Lower ratings mean more difficulty raising capital. No bank is too big to fail. Neither is any government.

Sports: The National Feminine Football League continues its plunge toward mediocrity as it tries to make the most violent sport less violent. Michael Vick, the Philadelphia Eagles’ QB, suffered a mild concussion in Atlanta due to a collision with one of his own teammates. Later in the game, Falcon cornerback DeSean Jackson collided with another Eagle, and both of them suffered concussions. Jackson got a fine from the NFFL. Extra-large powerful men running toward each other and colliding will occasionally cause injuries. It’s pretty hard to play aggressively and cautiously at the same time. The NFL sucks.

Entertainment: “Modern Family” garnered the most Emmy Awards at this year’s gala. One big (gay, straight, multi-cultural, traditional) happy family. Is this what the modern American family looks like?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers?

September 18, 2011

By Chuck Baldwin

I’ve been an evangelical Christian since I was a child. I’ve been
in the Gospel ministry all of my adult life. I attended two
evangelical Christian colleges, received honorary degrees from two
others, and taught and preached in several others. I’ve attended
many of the largest evangelical pastors’ gatherings and have been
privileged to speak at Christian gatherings–large and small–all over
America. I have been part of the inner workings of evangelical
ministry for nearly 40 years. I think I learned a thing or two about
evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity in America. And I’m here to
tell you: I don’t like what I see happening these days!

Let’s get this straight right out of the gate: nothing touched by
man can be perfect, because none of us is perfect. There is no perfect
church, perfect school, perfect mission board, perfect Sunday School
class, perfect pastor, perfect deacon, or perfect Christian. Until the
afterlife, we are all yet encased in Adamic flesh, complete with human
weaknesses and imperfections. And only the Pharisaical among us are
too proud to admit it.

That said, I do think it is more than fair to say that, historically,
Christians have always attempted to be–and have always publicly
taught the importance of being–peacemakers. Historically, Christians
have preached–and tried to practice–love and brotherhood. The early
church was born in a baptism of love and unity. Oh sure, there were
always individual misunderstandings and differences, but, on the
whole, the church was a loving, caring, compassionate ecclesia.

Mind you, Christians historically were not afraid or ashamed to
defend themselves, their families, and their country. The Lord Jesus,
Himself (the Prince of Peace), allowed His disciples to carry personal
defense weapons (see Luke 22:36,38). Yes, while some Christian sects
were conscientious pacifists, these were the exception, not the rule.
The vast majority of Christian believers understood the Biblical,
Natural Law principle of self-defense. But believing in the right of
lawful, God-ordained self-defense was never to be confused with

So, what has happened to turn the most peace-loving institution the
world has ever known (the New Testament church) into the biggest
cheerleaders for war? I’m talking about un-provoked, illegal,
unconstitutional, unbiblical–even secret–wars of aggression. The
biggest cheerleaders for the unprovoked, unconstitutional, pre-emptive
attack and invasion of Iraq were evangelical Christians. Ditto for the
war in Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the attacks in Yemen, etc.
Who is calling for the bombing of Iran? Evangelical Christians. Who
cheers for sending more and more troops all over the world to maim and
kill more and more people (including innocents)? Evangelical
Christians. Shoot (pun intended)! Most evangelical Christians didn’t
even bat an eye when the federal government sent military and police
personnel to murder American citizens, including old men, women, and
children–Christian old men, women, and children, no less–outside
Waco, Texas.

And where are today’s evangelical Christians giving a second
thought regarding their fellow Christian brothers and sisters in many
of these Middle Eastern countries that are being persecuted,
imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the puppet regimes being put in
power by the US government–at US taxpayer (including Christian
taxpayer) expense? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but more
Christians have been persecuted under the US-imposed regime in Iraq
than were ever persecuted when Saddam Hussein was in power. Oh! And
don’t forget that it was the US government that was responsible for
putting Saddam Hussein in power to begin with. The US government set
up Osama bin Laden, too. But I digress.

In addition to the “white” wars (the ones everyone knows about),
the US government authorizes some 70 black ops commando raids in some
120 countries EVERY DAY. In fact, the secret, black ops military of
the US is so large today it now totals more personnel than the ENTIRE

A recent report noted, “In 120 countries across the globe, troops
from Special Operations Command carry out their secret war of
high-profile assassinations, low-level targeted killings,
capture/kidnap operations, kick-down-the-door night raids, joint
operations with foreign forces, and training missions with indigenous
partners as part of a shadowy conflict unknown to most Americans. Once
‘special’ for being small, lean, outsider outfits, today they are
special for their power, access, influence, and aura.”

To see the complete report of America’s secret wars, go to:

Yet, how much of this knowledge would even faze the average
evangelical Christian today? All we hear from today’s “churches”
is “bomb,” “attack,” “wipe them out,” etc. Then, at the
same time, they get all emotional about sending missionaries to the
same countries that they had just cheered-on the US military in
raining down missiles of death and destruction upon (to bring
salvation to the lucky ones that weren’t killed, I suppose).

And who are the ones that belittle and impugn Ron Paul? Evangelical
Christians. Why? Because he tells the truth about America’s foreign
policy being responsible for much of the hatred and bitterness
erupting in foreign countries against us. I guarantee you that many of
the “conservative” Republicans who booed Dr. Paul’s comments to
this regard at the GOP Presidential debate this week would identify
themselves as evangelical Christians.

See the report at:

The disciples of our Lord were called “Christians” first by the
Gentiles of Antioch, because of the manner in which the disciples
reminded them of Christ’s nature and teachings. I never thought I
would hear myself say what I’m about to say, but the truth is, the
term “Christian” today means anything but Christ-like. To many
people today, “Christian” refers to some warmongering,
mean-spirited, throw-anyone-to-the-wolves-who-crosses-them person, who
then has the audacity to look down their nose in contempt against
anyone who disagrees with them for even the smallest reason. And the
word “church” has the stigma of being simply an enclave of
warmongers to many people today. And that, my friends, is one reason
so many people are so turned off with today’s Christianity. And I
can’t say that I blame them. I’m turned off too!

Am I a pacifist? Absolutely not! Do I believe an individual, a
family, a community, or a nation has the right to protect and defend
itself? I absolutely do! And the fellow who breaks into my home or who
attacks my loved ones will personally discover I believe that! But
this blind support for illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war is
anything but Christian. Not only is it turning people against our
country among people abroad, it is turning our own countrymen against
the Christ we Christians claim to love right here at home.

I dare say that the modern Warfare State would grind to a screeching
halt tomorrow if evangelical Christians would simply stop supporting
it! And the thing that most evangelical Christians fail to realize is
that the Warfare State is one of the primary tools that the evil one
is using to usher in his devilish New World Order that even babes in
Christ know to be of Satan. Hence, Christians are helping to promote
the very thing that Satan, himself, is using to enslave them.

Yes, I’ve been an evangelical Christian for most of my life and an
evangelical pastor for all of my adult life. And if we Christians do
not quickly repent of this bloodlust that seems to dominate
evangelical Christianity today (spiritually and militarily), the word
that was first used by un-churched Gentiles to describe Christ’s
followers will be used as a curse-word to describe those who
facilitated the ruination of our country.

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and
pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America
was founded.He lives in Montana.