See "BLOG TOPICS" Index in Sidebar, or use:
Please read: The CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.
Read about: DR. CHUCK BALDWIN for President here.

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan, 1984

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Why Neither Obama Nor McCain Will Save Us

By John W. Whitehead - The Rutherford Institute - Aug. 27, 2008

"In daily life, it's a lack of understanding about government that prompts people to call Congress when they want the dog catcher, or to complain to a local council member about a federal tax change. Over time, it can add up to disenfranchised and apathetic citizens." — "Ignorance of History Is No Joke" (CBS News, July 3, 2003)

The problems Americans currently face seem insurmountable, and they only appear to worsen at every turn: the deepening moral and spiritual crisis, the erosion of civil liberties, militarism and perpetual war, our declining economy, joblessness, homelessness, the mortgage crisis, a disaffected youth, crime, violence and so on. But let's be honest: it's neither the Republicans' nor the Democrats' fault that we're in such a mess today.

We have no one but ourselves to blame.

We've gotten the government—and the society—we deserve. But what did we do to deserve this bloated, power-hungry, self-serving, war-mongering bureaucracy? How did our straight-laced Puritan nation of freedom-loving citizens give way to a self-absorbed, entertainment-obsessed society?

The answer is simple: we stopped caring, and we stopped paying attention. Consciously or unconsciously, we gave up on the American Dream and, in so doing, lost our way. The facts speak for themselves. Most Americans have virtually no idea what America stands for and little idea how their government should function. Seventy percent of American adults cannot name their senators or congressmen. Nearly a quarter can't name a single right guaranteed in the First Amendment. Two-thirds can't name the three branches of government.

A poll taken several years ago reveals that Americans are more familiar with the Seven Dwarfs, Three Stooges, Harry Potter, Homer Simpson and Superman than the news of the day, world leaders or classic literature. And although America spends in excess of $40 billion annually on public education, in comparing the literacy level of adults in seventeen industrialized countries, America is number ten on the list. If knowledge of self-government and freedom are the source of our democracy, then we are in serious danger as a country.

The American Dream was once encapsulated in the hope of freedom, the right to compete in a free market and the right to own a parcel of land that you could call your own. Now, that once noble dream has been reduced to a radical individualism that is best symbolized by cell phones and shopping in mega-malls.

In fact, Americans now spend more time in malls shopping than in churches or synagogues. By 1987, America had more malls than high schools. As sociologist Sharon Zukin writes, "In a society where we no longer have contact with nature or beauty in our daily lives, shopping is one of the few ways we are left to create a sense of ultimate value."

This "sense of ultimate value" used to be found in community life and in religion. But community life has collapsed so much that, as author Alex Marshall observes, Americans live "in one of the loneliest societies on the earth." Church groups, union memberships, dinners at home with friends, bridge clubs, etc., have been all but decimated, only to be replaced by social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace that keep users at arm's reach and interacting on their own terms. Corner groceries and drugstores, owned by people who actually work and live in the community, have generally disappeared and been replaced by the blandness of corporate chain stores.

Even religion offers scant comfort anymore. Indeed, there is little spiritual depth to the politically correct, all-inclusive theology that passes for civil religion today. And Christian fundamentalism (and its political offshoot, the Christian Right), with its emphasis on amassing power and establishing a theocracy, is certainly not an answer to the American spiritual crisis.

Little surprise, then, that many Americans have turned to politics with an almost religious zeal as the answer to what ails the nation. "Change" and "Believe" campaign slogans have been trotted out, only to be eagerly picked up and chanted like religious mantras. However, we'd do well to remember that governmental bureaucracy is fervently anti-change. As for trusting or believing in a politician, James Madison put it best when he pointed out that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary."

If there is to be any real hope for change, it rests, as it always has, in "we the people" because while we may be a large part of the problem, we are also the solution. And there is great power in this.

Each generation of Americans faces the responsibility of protecting and defending the Constitution. It may be comforting to think that the problems facing America could be fixed by the next presidential election. But that is not going to happen. Neither Obama nor McCain will save us.

Any real, lasting change will have to come from within you and me—not from a political savior. Thus, if we want change, it is going to take all of us pulling together, working in our communities, addressing our all-too-real human needs.

We need to recapture the spirit of that ragtag band of revolutionaries who beat back the British Empire and gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That will mean turning off the television, switching off the computer screen, learning more about our history and getting educated on the basics of our government and Constitution.

Then we need to act on what we know. It may start with voting, but that's the least we can do. Active, direct citizen participation at every level—local, state and federal—is the only real hope for change. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world."

[by permission]

Read John Whitehead's other columns here.

Obama's "change" promises a continued path towards world government

Candidates from both parties will bring globalist programs

Barack Obama's July 24th speech in Berlin brought to light the Democratic Presidential candidates' globalist views, mirroring those of the Council on Foreign Relations and other globalist think tanks. Obama's praise of the European Union, calls for the "tearing down" of walls between nations and religions, and finally for world unity against climate change and terrorism reveal that an Obama Presidency will not bring change, but rather a continued erosion of national sovereignty and steps closer to world government.

Interestingly, Obama's speech was delivered beneath the "victory angel" statue in Berlin. As the Guardian reported on the 21st,

"The centrepiece of the European leg of Obama's visit will be his Berlin speech. Liberal and conservative politicians in Germany expressed consternation that Obama plans to address the crowds from beneath the golden angel statue which graces Berlin's Siegessäule, a landmark which Hitler moved to its present location as part of his bid to transform Berlin into the world capital Germania."

Obama's speech stated in part:

"That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."


"Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more -- not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity."


"The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny."

Barack Obama's remarks mirror those of Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who stated that the problems of climate change and terrorism would require a surrender of national sovereignty and ultimately the formation of a world government. "Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change," stated Haass. "The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

Obama is not the only presidential candidate with globalist ideals. John McCain's proposed League of Democracies and support of North American integration is one example. Hillary Clinton's open support for world government is another.

Obama's promise of "change" will bring no such thing. A continuation of globalist policy towards world government and weakened national sovereignty will undoubtedly be pursued.

By Daniel Taylor - Old-Thinker News - July 24, 2008

Related: Media hails Obama’s Speech As Call For “New World Order”

[by permission]

Police Brutality at DNC Denver - video


© Rocky Mountain News - Aug. 27, 2008
YouTube video (0:36)

Tuesday, August 26, 2008


Russia refuses to become part of neo-con New World Order; sleeping bear now roused

By Paul Craig Roberts

THE NEO-CONNED BUSH REGIME and the Israeli-occupied American media are heading the innocent world toward nuclear war. Back in the Reagan years, the National Endowment for Democracy was created as a Cold War tool.

Today, the NED is a neo-con-controlled agent for U.S. world hegemony. Its main function is to pour U.S. money and election-rigging into former parts of the USSR in order to ring Russia with U.S. puppet states.

The neo-conservative Bush regime used the NED to intervene in Ukrainian and Georgian internal affairs in keeping with the neo-conservative plan to establish U.S.-friendly and Russia-hostile political regimes in these two former constituent parts of Russia and the Soviet Union.

The NED was also used to dismember the former Yugoslavia with its interventions in Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro.

According to Wikipedia, Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, told The Washington Post in 1991 that much of what the NED does “today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The Bush regime, having established a puppet, Mikheil Saakashvili, as president of Georgia, tried to bring Georgia into NATO.

(For readers too young to know, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a military alliance between the United States and Western European countries to resist any Soviet move into Western Europe. There has been no reason for NATO since the Soviet Union’s internal political collapse almost two decades ago. The neo-cons turned NATO into another tool, like the NED, for U.S. world hegemony. Subsequent U.S. administrations violated the understandings that President Reagan had reached with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, and have incorporated former parts of the Soviet empire into NATO. The neo-con goal of ringing Russia with a hostile military alliance has been proclaimed many times.)

Western European members of NATO balked at the admission of Georgia, as they understood it as a provocative affront to Russia, on whom Western Europe is dependent for natural gas. Western Europeans are also disturbed at the Bush regime’s intentions to install ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, as the consequence will be Russian nuclear cruise missiles targeted on European capitals.

Europeans don’t see the advantage of helping the U.S. block Russian nuclear retaliation against America at the expense of their own existence. Ballistic missile defenses are not useful against cruise missiles.

Every country is tired of war except for the United States. War, including nuclear war, is the neo-conservative strategy for world hegemony.

The entire world, except for Americans, knows that the outbreak of armed conflict between Russian and Georgian forces in South Ossetia was entirely due to the United States and its Georgia puppet, Saakashvili.

Americans, alone in the world, are unaware that the hostilities were initiated by Saakashvili, because Bush, Cheney and the Israeli-occupied American media have again lied to them. Everyone else in the world knows that the unstable and corrupt Saakashvili, who proclaims democracy and runs a police state, would not have taken on Russia by attacking South Ossetia unless given the go-ahead by Washington.

The purpose of the Georgian attack on the Russian population of South Ossetia is twofold:

To convince Europeans that their action in delaying Georgia’s NATO membership is the cause of “the Russian aggression” and that to save Georgia from conquest Georgia must be given NATO membership.

To ethnically cleanse South Ossetia of its Russian population. Two thousand Russian civilians were targeted and killed by the U.S.-equipped and trained Georgian army, and tens of thousands fled into Russia. The hope is that the Russian population will be afraid to return or can be prevented from returning, thus removing the secessionist threat.

No doubt the Bush regime can con the insouciant American population, just as it did with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes and 9-11 itself, but the rest of the world is not buying it, least of all Moscow and
the Asia Times, and not even America’s bought-and-paid for European allies.

Writing in the Asia Times, Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, notes the disinformation that is being peddled by the Bush regime and the U.S. media and reports that “at the outbreak of violence, Russia had tried to have the United Nations Security Council issue a statement calling on Georgia and South Ossetia to immediately lay down weapons. However, Washington was uninterested.”

Bhadrakumar notes that the American and Georgian resort to violence and propaganda has brought an end to the Russian government’s belief that diplomacy and good will can bring about a settlement of the South Ossetia issue. If Russia wished, Russia could terminate Georgia’s existence as a separate country at will, and there is nothing the United States could do about it.

It is certain that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was a Bush regime orchestrated event. The U.S. media and the neo-con think tanks were ready with their propaganda blitzes. Neo-cons had ready a Wall Street Journal editorial page article for Saakashvili that declares “the war in Georgia is a war for the West.”

Faced with the collapse of his army when Russia sent in troops to protect South Ossetians from the Georgian troops, Saakashvili declared:

“This is not about Georgia anymore. It is about America, its values.”

The neo-con Heritage Foundation in Washington quickly called a conference hosted by warmonger Ariel Cohen, “Urgent! Event: Russian-Georgian War: a Challenge for the U.S. and theWorld.”

The Washington Post breathlessly promoted neo-con Robert Kagen’s war drums, “Putin Makes His Move.”

Only a fool like Kagen could think that if Putin intended to invade Georgia he would do so from Beijing, or that after sending the American-trained Georgian army in flight, he would not continue and conquer all of Georgia in order to put an end to American machinations on Russia’s most sensitive border—machinations that are likely to eventually end in nuclear war.

That despicable rag, The New York Times, printed Billy Kristol’s rant, “Will Russia Get Away With It?” Kristol thunders against “dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes” that “seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies.”

Kristol presents a new axis of evil—Russia, China, North Korea and Iran—and warns against “delay and irresolution” that “simply invite future threats and graver dangers.”

In other words, “attack Russia now.”

What must be the effect on U.S. Intelligence services and the U.S. military of Vice President Dick Cheney’s propagandistic and irresponsible statement of U.S. support for Georgia’s war crimes? Does anyone really believe that the CIA or any U.S. intelligence service told the vice president that Russia opened the conflict with an invasion? Russian troops arrived in South Ossetia after thousands of Ossetians had been killed by the Georgian attack and after tens of thousands of Ossetians had fled into Russia to escape the Georgian attack.

According to news reports, Russian forces have captured Americans who were with the Georgian troops directing their attack on civilians.

The U.S. military certainly has no resources for a war against Russia on top of lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a planned war with Iran.

With its Georgian venture, the Bush regime is guilty of a new round of war crimes. What will be the consequence? Many will reply that having got away with 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and with its preparations for attacking Iran, the Bush regime will get away with its Georgian venture, as well.

Possibly, however, this time the Bush regime has overreached. Certainly Russia now recognizes that the U.S. is determined to exert hegemony over
Russia and is Russia’s worst enemy. China realizes the U.S. threat to its own energy supply and, thereby, economy. Even America’s European allies, chafing under their role of supplying troops for America’s empire, must now realize that being an American ally is dangerous and has no benefits.

If Georgia becomes a NATO member and renews its attack on South Ossetia, it must drag Europe into a war with Russia, a main supplier of energy to Europe.

Moreover, if Russian troops are sent across European frontiers, there is nothing to stop them. What does America offer Europe, aside from the millions of dollars it pays to buy off Europe’s political leaders to ensure that they betray their own peoples?

Nothing whatsoever. The only military threat that Europe faces comes from being dragged into America’s wars for American hegemony.

The United States is financially bankrupt, with budget and trade deficits that exceed the combined deficits of the rest of the world together. The dollar has wilted. The American consumer market is dying from the offshoring of American jobs and, thereby, incomes, and from the wealth effect of the real estate and derivatives collapses. The United States has nothing to offer Europe. Indeed, American economic decline is killing European exports by driving up the value of the euro. America long ago lost the moral high ground.

Hypocrisy has become America’s best known hallmark. Bush, the invader of Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies and deception, thunders at Russia for coming to the defense of its peacekeepers and Russian citizens in South Ossetia. Bush, the vampire who ripped Kosovo out of Serbia’s heart and handed it to the Albanians, has taken an adamant stand against other separatist movements, especially the South Ossetians who wish to be part of the Russian Federation.

The neo-conned Bush regime is furious that the Russian bear was not intimidated by the United States supported aggression of the American puppet state, Georgia. Instead of accepting the act of American hegemony
that the neo-con script called for, Russia sent the Americanized Georgian army fleeing in fear.

Moreover, do the morons who comprise the Bush regime really not understand that short of a surprise nuclear attack on Russia there is nothing whatsoever the United States can do to Moscow?

The Bush regime owns no Russian currency that it can dump. The Russians own U.S. dollars. The Bush regime owns no Russian bonds that it can dump. The Russians own U.S. bonds. The U.S. can cut Russia off from no energy supplies. Russia can cut America’s European allies off from energy.

President Reagan negotiated the end of the Cold War with Soviet President Gorbachev. The neo-cons, whom Reagan fired and drove from his administration, were furious. The neo-conservatives had hoped to win the Cold War, thereby establishing American hegemony.

The Republican establishment re-established its hegemony under Bush the First that it had lost to Ronald Reagan. With this feat, intelligence was driven from the Republican Party.

The neo-cons engineered their comeback with the First Gulf War and their propaganda, pure lies, that Iraqi troops bayoneted Kuwait babies in hospitals.

The neo-cons made a further comeback with President Clinton, whom they convinced to bomb Serbia in order to permit separatist movements to become independent states dependent on America.

With Bush the Second, the neo-cons took over. Their agenda, American world hegemony, includes Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

So far the schemes of these dangerous ideologues have come a cropper. Iraq, formerly in the hands of secular Sunnis who were a check on Iran, is, after the American invasion and occupation, in the hands of religious Shiites allied with Iran. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are resurgent, and a large NATO-U.S. army there is unable to control the situation.

Those Americans stupid enough to think that America’s “super power” ensures its citizens from danger need to read the total contempt shown for President Bush in an editorial published in Russia’s “state” newspaper, Pravda (see bottom of page).

Nationally syndicated columnist, Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., a former editor at The Wall Street Journal, is the author of several books. He has been associated with the Hoover Institution, and the Institute for Political Economy and from 1981 to 1982 served as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy.

(Issue # 35, September 1, 2008)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Democrats and Republicans - LOL

Democrats and Republicans. Two of the biggest frauds ever.

Satan, the great deceiver, must be in charge of these two excuses for political leadership. Neither is as they would have you believe. Neither has ever had the answers. And, certainly, they do not in 2008.

Democrats are named after the most frequently failed political scheme in world history. Democracy, that great lie, has never worked. The rich get richer, and the poor schnooks keep on suffering, wondering, "Why?"

Republicans should be in jail for conspiracy to commit conspiracy. Republicans are not republicans. One need only read the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, to know the republican party is unconstitutional.

What makes this possible? You do. Every time Americans buy into the Power Elite scam, and call those who warn against it crackpots, those deceived sheeple further ingrain the systemic, terminal disease, self-deception, destroying America, not unlike a cancer.

We return to the subject, Satan. Holy Scripture warns of his deceptions beginning in Genesis. For thousands of years, there has been no change. We are still deceived. By choice.

What is ahead? Be sure that predictions about 2012 are not the answer. From Matthew, the LORD speaks, (24:22) "Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be shortened." (WEB)

Will you be chosen?

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

As a dues-paying member of Hillary Clinton’s Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, it came as a revelation of sorts to learn about the parallel universe in which a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy exists. Within it, liberals do endless battle with one another for control of the Democrat Party.

Ron Arnold’s book, “Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy”, is not light reading. This heavily researched and documented narrative reveals all the major players of the liberal universe and how these renamed “progressives” interact through networks of wealthy foundations, advocacy groups, think tanks, and leftist media. ...

By Alan Caruba - - August 26, 2008

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Storms on the Horizon - by Richard W. Fisher

Richard W. Fisher
Storms on the Horizon
Remarks before the Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, California
May 28, 2008

Thank you, Bruce [Ericson]. I am honored to be here this evening and am grateful for the invitation to speak to the Commonwealth Club of California.

Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, two of Ben Bernanke’s linear ancestors as chairmen of the Federal Reserve, have been in the news quite a bit lately. Yet, we rarely hear about William McChesney Martin, a magnificent public servant who was Fed chairman during five presidencies and to this day holds the record for the longest tenure: 19 years.

Chairman Martin had a way with words. And he had a twinkle in his eye. It was Bill Martin who wisely and succinctly defined the Federal Reserve as having the unenviable task “to take away the punchbowl just as the party gets going.” He did himself one up when he received the Alfalfa Club’s nomination for the presidency of the United States. I suspect many here tonight have been to the annual Alfalfa dinner. It is one of the great institutions in Washington, D.C. Once a year, it holds a dinner devoted solely to poking fun at the political pretensions of the day. Tongue firmly in cheek, the club nominates a candidate to run for the presidency on the Alfalfa Party ticket. Of course, none of them ever win. Nominees are thenceforth known for evermore as members of the Stassen Society, named for Harold Stassen, who ran for president nine times and lost every time, then ran a tenth time on the Alfalfa ticket and lost again. The motto of the group is Veni, Vidi, Defici—“I came, I saw, I lost.”

Bill Martin was nominated to run and lose on the Alfalfa Party ticket in 1966, while serving as Fed chairman during Lyndon Johnson’s term. In his acceptance speech,[1] he announced that, given his proclivities as a central banker, he would take his cues from the German philosopher Goethe, “who said that people could endure anything except continual prosperity.” Therefore, Martin declared, he would adopt a platform proclaiming that as a president he planned to “make life endurable again by stamping out prosperity.”

“I shall conduct the administration of the country,” he said, “exactly as I have so successfully conducted the affairs of the Federal Reserve. To that end, I shall assemble the best brains that can be found…ask their advice on all matters…and completely confound them by following all their conflicting counsel.”

It is true, Bruce, that as you said in your introduction, I am one of the 17 people who participate in Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) deliberations and provide Ben Bernanke with “conflicting counsel” as the committee cobbles together a monetary policy that seeks to promote America’s economic prosperity, Goethe to the contrary. But tonight I speak for neither the committee, nor the chairman, nor any of the other good people that serve the Federal Reserve System. I speak solely in my own capacity. I want to speak to you tonight about an economic problem that we must soon confront or else risk losing our primacy as the world’s most powerful and dynamic economy.

Forty-three years ago this Sunday, Bill Martin delivered a commencement address to Columbia University that was far more sober than his Alfalfa Club speech. The opening lines of that Columbia address [2] were as follows: “When economic prospects are at their brightest, the dangers of complacency and recklessness are greatest. As our prosperity proceeds on its record-breaking path, it behooves every one of us to scan the horizon of our national and international economy for danger signals so as to be ready for any storm.”

Today, our fellow citizens and financial markets are paying the price for falling victim to the complacency and recklessness Martin warned against. Few scanned the horizon for trouble brewing as we proceeded along a path of unparalleled prosperity fueled by an unsustainable housing bubble and unbridled credit markets. Armchair or Monday morning quarterbacks will long debate whether the Fed could have/should have/would have taken away the punchbowl that lubricated that blowout party. I have given my opinion on that matter elsewhere and won’t go near that subject tonight. What counts now is what we have done more recently and where we go from here. Whatever the sins of omission or commission committed by our predecessors, the Bernanke FOMC’s objective is to use a new set of tools to calm the tempest in the credit markets to get them back to functioning in a more orderly fashion. We trust that the various term credit facilities we have recently introduced are helping restore confidence while the credit markets undertake self-corrective initiatives and lawmakers consider new regulatory schemes.

I am also not going to engage in a discussion of present monetary policy tonight, except to say that if inflationary developments and, more important, inflation expectations, continue to worsen, I would expect a change of course in monetary policy to occur sooner rather than later, even in the face of an anemic economic scenario. Inflation is the most insidious enemy of capitalism. No central banker can countenance it, not least the men and women of the Federal Reserve.

Tonight, I want to talk about a different matter. In keeping with Bill Martin’s advice, I have been scanning the horizon for danger signals even as we continue working to recover from the recent turmoil. In the distance, I see a frightful storm brewing in the form of untethered government debt. I choose the words—“frightful storm”—deliberately to avoid hyperbole. Unless we take steps to deal with it, the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government will be unimaginably more devastating to our economic prosperity than the subprime debacle and the recent debauching of credit markets that we are now working so hard to correct.

You might wonder why a central banker would be concerned with fiscal matters. Fiscal policy is, after all, the responsibility of the Congress, not the Federal Reserve. Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to tax and spend. From this monetary policymaker’s point of view, though, deficits matter for what we do at the Fed. There are many reasons why. Economists have found that structural deficits raise long-run interest rates, complicating the Fed’s dual mandate to develop a monetary policy that promotes sustainable, noninflationary growth. The even more disturbing dark and dirty secret about deficits—especially when they careen out of control—is that they create political pressure on central bankers to adopt looser monetary policy down the road. I will return to that shortly. First, let me give you the unvarnished facts of our nation’s fiscal predicament.

Eight years ago, our federal budget, crafted by a Democratic president and enacted by a Republican Congress, produced a fiscal surplus of $236 billion, the first surplus in almost 40 years and the highest nominal-dollar surplus in American history. While the Fed is scrupulously nonpartisan and nonpolitical, I mention this to emphasize that the deficit/debt issue knows no party and can be solved only by both parties working together. For a brief time, with surpluses projected into the future as far as the eye could see, economists and policymakers alike began to contemplate a bucolic future in which interest payments would form an ever-declining share of federal outlays, a future where Treasury bonds and debt-ceiling legislation would become dusty relics of a long-forgotten past. The Fed even had concerns about how open market operations would be conducted in a marketplace short of Treasury debt.

That utopian scenario did not last for long. Over the next seven years, federal spending grew at a 6.2 percent nominal annual rate while receipts grew at only 3.5 percent. Of course, certain areas of government, like national defense, had to spend more in the wake of 9/11. But nondefense discretionary spending actually rose 6.4 percent annually during this timeframe, outpacing the growth in total expenditures. Deficits soon returned, reaching an expected $410 billion for 2008—a $600 billion swing from where we were just eight years ago. This $410 billion estimate, by the way, was made before the recently passed farm bill and supplemental defense appropriation and without considering a proposed patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax—all measures that will lead to a further ballooning of government deficits.

In keeping with the tradition of rosy scenarios, official budget projections suggest this deficit will be relatively short-lived. They almost always do. According to the official calculus, following a second $400-billion-plus deficit in 2009, the red ink should fall to $160 billion in 2010 and $95 billion in 2011, and then the budget swings to a $48 billion surplus in 2012.

If you do the math, however, you might be forgiven for sensing that these felicitous projections look a tad dodgy. To reach the projected 2012 surplus, outlays are assumed to rise at a 2.4 percent nominal annual rate over the next four years—less than half as fast as they rose the previous seven years. Revenue is assumed to rise at a 6.7 percent nominal annual rate over the next four years—almost double the rate of the past seven years. Using spending and revenue growth rates that have actually prevailed in recent years, the 2012 surplus quickly evaporates and becomes a deficit, potentially of several hundred billion dollars.

Doing deficit math is always a sobering exercise. It becomes an outright painful one when you apply your calculator to the long-run fiscal challenge posed by entitlement programs. Were I not a taciturn central banker, I would say the mathematics of the long-term outlook for entitlements, left unchanged, is nothing short of catastrophic.

Typically, critics ranging from the Concord Coalition to Ross Perot begin by wringing their collective hands over the unfunded liabilities of Social Security. A little history gives you a view as to why. Franklin Roosevelt originally conceived a social security system in which individuals would fund their own retirements through payroll-tax contributions. But Congress quickly realized that such a system could not put much money into the pockets of indigent elderly citizens ravaged by the Great Depression. Instead, a pay-as-you-go funding system was embraced, making each generation’s retirement the responsibility of its children.

Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the “infinite horizon discounted value” of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.

Demographics explain why this is so. Birthrates have fallen dramatically, reducing the worker–retiree ratio and leaving today’s workers pulling a bigger load than the system designers ever envisioned. Life spans have lengthened without a corresponding increase in the retirement age, leaving retirees in a position to receive benefits far longer than the system designers envisioned. Formulae for benefits and cost-of-living adjustments have also contributed to the growth in unfunded liabilities.

The good news is this Social Security shortfall might be manageable. While the issues regarding Social Security reform are complex, it is at least possible to imagine how Congress might find, within a $14 trillion economy, ways to wrestle with a $13 trillion unfunded liability. The bad news is that Social Security is the lesser of our entitlement worries. It is but the tip of the unfunded liability iceberg. The much bigger concern is Medicare, a program established in 1965, the same prosperous year that Bill Martin cautioned his Columbia University audience to be wary of complacency and storms on the horizon.

Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning, despite warnings from some congressional leaders—Wilbur Mills was the most credible of them before he succumbed to the pay-as-you-go wiles of Fanne Foxe, the Argentine Firecracker—who foresaw some of the long-term fiscal issues such a financing system could pose. Unfortunately, they were right.

Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

Why is the Medicare figure so large? There is a mix of reasons, really. In part, it is due to the same birthrate and life-expectancy issues that affect Social Security. In part, it is due to ever-costlier advances in medical technology and the willingness of Medicare to pay for them. And in part, it is due to expanded benefits—the new drug benefit program’s unfunded liability is by itself one-third greater than all of Social Security’s.

Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the “funded” entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.

Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.

Clearly, once-and-for-all contributions would be an unbearable burden. Alternatively, we could address the entitlement shortfall through policy changes that would affect ourselves and future generations. For example, a permanent 68 percent increase in federal income tax revenue—from individual and corporate taxpayers—would suffice to fully fund our entitlement programs. Or we could instead divert 68 percent of current income-tax revenues from their intended uses to the entitlement system, which would accomplish the same thing.

Suppose we decided to tackle the issue solely on the spending side. It turns out that total discretionary spending in the federal budget, if maintained at its current share of GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than the entitlement shortfall. So all we would have to do to fully fund our nation’s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut—almost eliminated, really—to tackle this problem through discretionary spending.

I hope that gives you some idea of just how large the problem is. And just to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?

If these possible solutions to the unfunded-liability problem seem draconian, it’s because they are draconian. But they do serve to give you a sense of the severity of the problem. To be sure, there are ways to lessen the reliance on any single policy and the burden borne by any particular set of citizens. Most proposals to address long-term entitlement debt, for example, rely on a combination of tax increases, benefit reductions and eligibility changes to find the trillions necessary to safeguard the system over the long term.

No combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, though, will change the total burden borne by current and future generations. For the existing unfunded liabilities to be covered in the end, someone must pay $99.2 trillion more or receive $99.2 trillion less than they have been currently promised. This is a cold, hard fact. The decision we must make is whether to shoulder a substantial portion of that burden today or compel future generations to bear its full weight.

Now that you are all thoroughly depressed, let me come back to monetary policy and the Fed.

It is only natural to cast about for a solution—any solution—to avoid the fiscal pain we know is necessary because we succumbed to complacency and put off dealing with this looming fiscal disaster. Throughout history, many nations, when confronted by sizable debts they were unable or unwilling to repay, have seized upon an apparently painless solution to this dilemma: monetization. Just have the monetary authority run cash off the printing presses until the debt is repaid, the story goes, then promise to be responsible from that point on and hope your sins will be forgiven by God and Milton Friedman and everyone else.

We know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient Rome to today’s Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today’s bills leads to much worse problems later on. The inflation that results from the flood of money into the economy turns out to be far worse than the fiscal pain those countries hoped to avoid.

Earlier I mentioned the Fed’s dual mandate to manage growth and inflation. In the long run, growth cannot be sustained if markets are undermined by inflation. Stable prices go hand in hand with achieving sustainable economic growth. I have said many, many times that inflation is a sinister beast that, if uncaged, devours savings, erodes consumers’ purchasing power, decimates returns on capital, undermines the reliability of financial accounting, distracts the attention of corporate management, undercuts employment growth and real wages, and debases the currency.

Purging rampant inflation and a debased currency requires administering a harsh medicine. We have been there, and we know the cure that was wrought by the FOMC under Paul Volcker. Even the perception that the Fed is pursuing a cheap-money strategy to accommodate fiscal burdens, should it take root, is a paramount risk to the long-term welfare of the U.S. economy. The Federal Reserve will never let this happen. It is not an option. Ever. Period.

The way we resolve these liabilities—and resolve them we must—will affect our own well-being as well as the prospects of future generations and the global economy. Failing to face up to our responsibility will produce the mother of all financial storms. The warning signals have been flashing for years, but we find it easier to ignore them than to take action. Will we take the painful fiscal steps necessary to prevent the storm by reducing and eventually eliminating our fiscal imbalances? That depends on you.

I mean “you” literally. This situation is of your own creation. When you berate your representatives or senators or presidents for the mess we are in, you are really berating yourself. You elect them. You are the ones who let them get away with burdening your children and grandchildren rather than yourselves with the bill for your entitlement programs.

This issue transcends political affiliation. When George Shultz, one of San Francisco’s greatest Republican public servants, was director of President Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget, he became worried about the amount of money Congress was proposing to spend. After some nights of tossing and turning, he called legendary staffer Sam Cohen into his office. Cohen had a long memory of budget matters and knew every zig and zag of budget history. “Sam,” Shultz asked, “tell me something just between you and me. Is there any difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending money?” Cohen looked at him, furrowed his brow and, after thinking about it, replied, “Mr. Shultz, there is only one difference: Democrats enjoy it more.”

Yet no one, Democrat or Republican, enjoys placing our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren in harm’s way. No one wants to see the frightful storm of unfunded long-term liabilities destroy our economy or threaten the independence and authority of our central bank or tear our currency asunder.

Of late, we have heard many complaints about the weakness of the dollar against the euro and other currencies. It was recently argued in the op-ed pages of the Financial Times [3] that one reason for the demise of the British pound was the need to liquidate England’s international reserves to pay off the costs of the Great Wars. In the end, the pound, it was essentially argued, was sunk by the kaiser’s army and Hitler’s bombs. Right now, we—you and I—are launching fiscal bombs against ourselves. You have it in your power as the electors of our fiscal authorities to prevent this destruction. Please do so.

About the Author

Richard W. Fisher is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.


The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve System.

1. William McChesney Martin, “Alfalfa Club Dinner Script,” delivered at the Alfalfa Club Dinner, Washington, D.C., Jan. 22, 1966, Box 163, William McChesney Martin Collection, Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, Texas.
2. “Does Monetary History Repeat Itself?” Commencement Day Luncheon of the Alumni Federation of Columbia University, June 1, 1965, New York City.
3. “The Euro’s Success Could Also Be Its Downfall,” by Harold James, Financial Times, May 18, 2008.

Not copyrighted. Reprinted by permission of the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS WEB SITE:

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Meaning of Rick Warren and the Obama-McCain Interviews

By John W. Whitehead - The Rutherford Institute - Aug. 22, 2008

"I have never been considered a part of the religious right, because I don’t believe politics is the most effective way to change the world. Although public service can be a noble profession, and I believe it is our responsibility to vote, I don’t have much faith in government solutions, given the track record." — Rick Warren

The recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was a wash. Both candidates, who claim to be Christians, spent much of their time pandering to the nearly three million television viewers who tuned in. But in terms of what presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama had to say, their responses were largely lacking in content.

However, the Saddleback Forum wasn’t insignificant. Its significance has less to do with what the two candidates had to say than in what the person asking the questions, Pastor Rick Warren, signifies for the future of Christianity in America.

The fact that it was Warren and not James Dobson, the Christian Right’s de facto Godfather, is particularly telling. It speaks of a decided shift away from the rigid, right-wing mindset that has dominated evangelical Christianity in America over the past three decades. Warren, pastor of the 23,000-member Saddleback Church in California and the best-selling author of The Purpose-Driven Life, seems to be about as far as you can get from the stigma of the Christian Right while still calling himself an evangelical Christian.

The Christian Right, represented by such prominent figures as Dobson, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, among others, has long stood for the erection of a Christian State. As David Kuo, who served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush documents in his book Tempting Faith, these Christian leaders worked hard to maintain ties to the Bush White House, complete with weekly conference calls to keep them updated on every facet of the president’s policy and political agenda.

However, the dismal failure of the George W. Bush presidency has led inevitably to the decline of the Christian Right—and can be credited with contributing to Warren’s rise to prominence. According to a 2005 Nation article, Warren “disassociates himself from the religious right, noting that he shares its position on social issues but doesn’t want to focus on them. He focuses on poverty, disease and aid to Africa.”

It’s not difficult to see why Warren, a mainline evangelical in the Billy Graham mold, is enjoying such popularity. Disillusioned by the power-hawking, war-mongering of the Christian Right, the nation’s 80 million evangelical Christians would have little trouble with the feel-good Christianity that Warren sells—non-confrontational, congenial and polite. That isn’t to say that it lacks substance, merely controversy.

As a recent Time article observed, like Graham, Warren “projects an authenticity that has helped him forge an exquisite set of political connections—in the White House, on both sides of the legislative aisle and abroad. And he is both leading and riding the newest wave of change in the Evangelical community: an expansion beyond social conservatism to causes such as battling poverty, opposing torture and combating global warming. The movement has loosened the hold of religious-right leaders on ordinary Evangelicals and created an opportunity for Warren, who has lent his prominent voice to many of the new concerns.”

Warren has avoided much that is controversial, such as abortion and gay marriage (what he refers to as “sin issues”). Instead, Warren focuses on issues that “unite,” such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights. Warren is, whether consciously or unconsciously, shifting the national faith dialogue back to a pre-Reagan era, before the small group of leaders that have come to dominate the Christian Right turned Christianity into a synonym for right-wing theocracy.

Sidestepping the siren call of politics, Warren has taken aim at what he calls the “five global giants”: spiritual emptiness, selfish leadership, hunger, sickness and illiteracy. Empowered by his publishing success and with the support of his megachurch, he launched his PEACE initiative—an acronym for promote reconciliation; equip servant leaders; assist the poor; care for the sick; educate the next generation. Since coming up with the idea, he has taken his PEACE plan global, with Rwanda as his testing ground.

Warren is now being looked upon as America’s pastor. Suddenly, Christianity appears somewhat appealing again. Yet while there is much to commend this so-called New Evangelicalism, with its rejection of politics as the answer and its emphasis on carrying out Jesus’ mandate to care for the poor and helpless, there is also an important lesson to be learned. The rise of the Christian Right came about at a time when the evangelical church in America was doing its best to be non-controversial and inoffensive. The evangelical church’s subsequent failure to morally impact the culture and the legalizing of abortion can be directly attributed to the emergence of the Christian Right.

The Christian Right was, without a doubt, a semi-militant reaction to a society that seemed to be lacking a moral compass. And as journalist Chris Hedges points out in his book American Fascists, if a real crisis again arose in this country (such as another terrorist attack), it would not take much for the country to revert back to such a militant fundamentalism.

This brings us to the current presidential election. No matter who ascends to the White House, it’s clear that Christians will not enjoy the kind of access they laid claim to during the Bush administration—whatever good it did them. For example, abortions didn’t decline under Bush, and it’s doubtful whether they would under either Obama or McCain.

The lesson to be learned is this: what is needed now is not a return to the overly polite Christianity of the pre-Reagan era. Nor is it the politically charged Christianity of the Religious Right, but a brand of Christianity that does not shy away from speaking truth to power. In other words, the type of Christianity Jesus practiced.

[by permission]
Read John Whitehead's other columns here.

Oh, my Gog! - Hal Lindsey

Oh, my Gog!

WorldNetDaily Exclusive: Hal Lindsey sees biblical significance in Russia's re-conquering of neighbors

Ezekiel predicted this alignment of nations could only take place after Israel was restored to its place among the nations of the world. And so it unfolds. So, if that isn't the point, what is? It's simple. Who told Ezekiel?

Because the same One that told Ezekiel the future also extends you an offer of pardon, if you are ready to believe that He is and allow Him into your heart as your Lord and Savior.

I pray that you decide well. Time is not on your side.

By Hal Lindsey - - August 22, 2008

Economy Head Fake - Beware

Investors Chase Phantoms

Over the last few months, as the dollar rose more than 10% against a basket of other currencies, and as gold and oil sank to multi-month lows, many investors concluded that a threshold had been crossed, and that the bearish trend for the dollar and the bullish trends for commodities had finally come to an end. But rather than representing a sea change, these counter trend moves more likely signify that the established trends are about to kick it into a whole new gear. My take is that if you thought you had seen a bear market in the dollar and bull market in gold, oil, and other commodities, well, "you ain't seen nothing yet."

by Peter Schiff - - Aug, 22, 2008

...more on challenges to our economy here, beginning May, 2008 - full listing

John McCain Pro Life? What A Joke!

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin - August 22, 2008

Once again, "pro-life" Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain's commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle.

Dare I remind everyone that the "pro-life" GOP controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006 and nothing was done to overturn Roe v. Wade or end legal abortion-on-demand? When George W. Bush took the oath of office in January of 2001, over one million innocent unborn babies were being murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. And when George W. Bush leaves office in January of 2009, over one million innocent unborn babies would still be murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. Eight years of a "pro-life" President and six years of the "pro-life" GOP in charge of the entire federal government and not one unborn baby's life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and abortion-on-demand is still legal in America.

Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.

What would Congressman Paul's bill do? It would do two things: 1) It would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul's bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain? Why did he not support Ron Paul's bill and introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate?

How can John McCain, and his fellow Republicans in Washington, D.C., look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye in 2008 and expect that we take them seriously when they say that they are "pro-life"? If the GOP had truly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it. They controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives for six long years, for goodness sake. The reason they did not do it is because they did not want to do it. They merely want to use "pro-life" rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe gullible Christian voters every election year. And the disgusting thing about it is--it works.

The vast majority of notable "pro-life" leaders in the country are now trumpeting the candidacy of John McCain. And the best challenge they can come up with is "McCain better not pick a 'pro-choice' Vice President." Oh, shut up (to quote Jay Leno)!

John McCain openly embraces embryonic stem cell research. In 2000, he boldly said he did not favor the overturn of Roe v. Wade. John McCain was a member of the infamous "Gang of 14" senators from both parties whose purpose was to oppose pro-life, strict constructionist judges.

Speaking of judges, John McCain voted for the pro-abortion justice, Stephen Breyer, and the radical, pro-abortion, ACLU attorney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So much for the argument that we need John McCain for the sake of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court. For that matter, Republican appointments dominated the Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and the one that later gave us Doe v. Bolton. Proving, once again, that the Republican Party, as a whole, has no real commitment to the life issue.

John McCain also gave us McCain-Feingold. This is the law that keeps pro-life or pro-Second Amendment organizations from broadcasting ads that mention a candidate by name 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. This proves that John McCain believes neither in the right to life nor the right to keep and bear arms. (This is one reason why the Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F.)

In a debate with George W. Bush in May of 2000, John McCain attacked Bush's support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party. Still today, John McCain believes that babies who are conceived via rape or incest should be murdered. I remind readers, however, that there are no "exceptions" in the womb, only babies.

If all of the above is not enough, as a senator, John McCain has repeatedly voted to fund pro-abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars. In fact, McCain has voted to use federal tax dollars to support abortion providers at home and overseas. Yes, this "pro-life" senator (along with "pro-life" President, George W. Bush) has significantly increased federal spending for abortion providers to levels eclipsing even the appropriations authorized by President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats.

John McCain also supports the United Nations, which not only works to strip the United States of its independence and sovereignty, and banish our right to keep and bear arms, but is also the most radical, pro-abortion organization in the entire world. More babies have been aborted around the world under the auspices of the U.N. than any other single entity.

Tell me again, Mr. Christian Leader, how "pro-life" John McCain is. What a joke!

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

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as

[by permission]

Read Dr. Chuck Baldwin's other columns here.  Dr. Baldwin is the 2008 Constitution Party candidate for President of the United States. His Campaign Web Site has more information. Chuck Baldwin's archived columns are reprinted here to give the U.S. voter a point of view different from that of the mainstream media and the autocratic establishment parties. Disclaimer: Neither Chuck Baldwin, Darrell Castle, their campaigns, nor the Constitution Party approve or endorse this blog.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

The Unholy Trinity

We have viewed God's final judgment of this created earth, the fallen angels, and the wicked multitudes from the heavenly advantage. Every aspect of this coming judgment is directed out of the seven-sealed book under the direction of the Lamb that was slain. Now, this period will be watched from the earthly advantage. We will actually see Satan fall to the earth and witness the rise of the Antichrist and the false prophet. The horrors of all of this will be clear and unmistakable. This earth is about to experience its final catastrophic upheaval. I'm sure God, the great Creator, will use every power of nature and will also allow Satan and his horde to express their venom. But all that occurs will be under His sovereign design, and the ultimate result will be redemption of this earth that has been wrought by the death and sacrifice of His Son. ...

by Joseph R. Chambers - - Aug. 20, 2008


"Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers..." — Barack Hussein Obama

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right" — Barack Hussein Obama


Our Sovereign God has moved aside and has turned us over to the consequences of our own iniquities. Our simple carnal minds harbor the seeds of self-destruction, we are our own worst enemy and all that befalls us is of our own making. We have been given over to Satan the god of this world, the old serpent, who is the epitome of evil and a venomous hater of mankind; our fate will not be kind. Only He who loves us has the power to save us, hallowed be His name.

By Jim R. Schwiesow - July 16, 2008 -

Chuck Baldwin at Freedom 21 Conference - video

Dr. CHUCK BALDWIN on globalism, gun rights, and the 2008 election; interview by Mark Anderson of American Free Press:

YouTube video (4:33)
Courtesy: afpsupporter

[We apologize for the poor audio quality. - ed.]

0.1% for Chuck Baldwin - is that all?

Nearly 2 in 3 voters want someone else

Stunning 62.4% of Americans would like to see better choices of candidates, parties in future

Besides those indicating they will not be voting at all, 2.5 percent chose other – despite the fact that all five minor party nominees were included as options for poll-takers. Among those five, Ralph Nader of the Peace and Freedom Party was the leader with 1.6 percent, followed by Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party with 1.2 percent. They were followed by Alan Keyes of the America's Independent Party nominee Alan Keyes with 0.7 percent, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with 0.2 percent and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with 0.1 percent. Another 0.4 percent said they planned to write-in their choice for president. ...

WorldNetDaily - August 19, 2008

[If that's all Americans think of the Constitution, we're in immense, terminal trouble. Read comments by Constitutionalists. - ed.]

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Do you pray for America?

The following prayers are Scriptures adapted "vertically" to be prayed back to God. This pattern of worship, thanksgiving, confession and requesting will help prepare you to intercede for the elections. Use these Scriptures to prepare your heart to pray.

Pray the Scriptures for Election Day!

from: The Presidential Prayer Team

[This is a non-partisan effort. - ed.]

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Are We Stupid, Crazy, or Both?

Are You Ready for Nuclear War?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS - - August 19, 2008

Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.

In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, “our” leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.

If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican. ...

[...and if you want to kill more unborn and newborn babies, promote sexual perversion, socialism, and the new world order, vote Democrat. If you want to vote for the Constitution — and your liberty — vote for Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. - ed.]