Sunday, October 26, 2014


In my previous blog bit I told y'all that currently my favorite political writer is SELWYN DUKE whose excellent articles you'll find HERE. 

I didn't tell ya then but I'm tellin' ya now that two of my favorite sources for current event news are World Net Daily and The New American. The former site has done more than anyone else to expose the truth about Barack Obama's forged long-form birth certificate, and the latter site has been ahead of the “New World Order” political conspiracy curve for many decades (although there's a Mormonism connection and some questionable stuffs in their past that one should bear in mind). 

Today I want to yak to ya about a straight-shooting Christian minister whose articles I like to read.

CHUCK BALDWIN tells is like it is, and he once even ran for President representing 'The Constitution Party', which is the only political party I actually respect. Naturally, I don't agree with Chuck Baldwin's views 100% of the time, but close enough. (One area of frequent disagreement pertains to my belief that Baldwin is unable to see Ronald Reagan for what he really was: just another deceptive, Big Government NeoCon, but one who talked a particularly good game. Dig into objective details of Reagan's presidency and you'll soon see that he wasn't the conservative hero the Republican party wants We The People to think he was. He was just “more of the same” but with better words; a better “actor” with a better act.)

Even the liberal propaganda site Wikipedia has been unable to dig up any really good dirt on Christian pastor CHUCK BALDWIN: 

Below are links to some of CHUCK BALDWIN's articles, in some cases followed by selected excerpts (not to be confused with “unselected excerpts”). 

October 24, 2014 

When I started my radio talk show back in 1994 – and for the next six years hosting the show – I was considered a hero by conservatives everywhere. Between my leadership position with the Moral Majority back in the 1980s and my radio talk show in the 1990s, I walked shoulder-to-shoulder with practically every notable conservative leader, including Christian leaders, one could think of. I traveled the country speaking with, and for, the most visible conservative leaders in America. I became friends with a host of U.S. congressmen and senators, not to mention several State governors. I even sat at the "king's table" with President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush. I was one of the "darlings" of conservatism. Just about anybody who was anybody was a guest on my show.

I only mention all of that so readers can understand my background – along with the "rest of the story" that brought me to where I am today.

Back in those days, I fell right in lock-step with the left-right paradigm: Republicans were good; Democrats were bad. And even if the Republican was downright bad, he wasn't as bad as the Democrat. That doctrine was sacrosanct and unassailable. And I believed that malarkey as much as anyone.

September 6, 2014 

I was told by a Marine Corps officer, who was there, that last year Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, were asked in a survey if they were ordered to turn their weapons on the American citizenry for the purpose of gun confiscation, would they comply with the order. Sixty-six percent of them said yes, they would. Two-thirds! When this same question was asked of Marines at Twentynine Palms back in the 90s, 26% of the Marines said yes. This is a very disturbing trend. …

Look at what happens more and more frequently at routine traffic stops. My mother-in-law (who is in her eighties) was recently pulled over for a routine traffic stop here in Montana. (She must have been pulled over for driving too SLOW.) Two officers came out of the police car, and one of them was actually pointing his pistol at her head. Her vehicle was not suspected of having been part of a felony. They ran her plates. They knew who she was. To point a gun at a harmless, innocent senior citizen – who is suspected of no violent crime – is the mark of a burgeoning Police State. …

It all begins with philosophy. The philosophy being drilled into police officers today is that of an "us versus them" mentality. In the eyes of a Police State, we are not citizens to be protected; we are enemy targets who are guilty until proven innocent. Plus, the phrase that we hear constantly repeated today by law enforcement personnel and spokesmen is "the safety of the officer.

Wait a minute! The sworn duty of a police officer is to obey the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), which is designed to protect the rights, liberties, and safely of the American people. The role of the police officer is to protect the safety of the public. Any man or woman who volunteers to put on a badge should be consciously willing to put his or her life on the line to protect the public. That's what their job is all about. And no one forces them to take this risk; they take it of their own volition. Of course you men and women of law enforcement want to go home at the end of your shift. But so do the people of your community. 

August 29, 2011 

"[C]onspiracy nuts." Right? Isn't that what anyone is called who believes that the federal government hides the truth about what happens and conjures up a convenient "official" story to sell to the American people? Isn't that what the media calls anyone who dares to question any "official" report? Isn't that what Glenn Beck calls them? Isn't that what Joe Scarborough calls them? Isn't that what Bill O'Reilly calls them? Isn't that what Rush Limbaugh calls them? They are "conspiracy nuts." Right? … 

I want to go ahead and just say up front: I believe that anyone who thinks that there are no conspiracies that many times involve people and agencies at the highest levels of government and business is downright simple minded, willingly ignorant, incredibly na├»ve, or has a personal, vested reason to remain clueless. … 

9/11 Twin Towers and Pentagon Attacks

There has been so much written on this subject, I will let readers fend for themselves as to personal research on the matter. Without wading too deeply into this discussion (and for the sake of column space), let me ask just one simple question. Pray tell, what took down Building 7? To this good hour, I have not heard one single plausible explanation proffered by any government or media representative that explains why Building 7 collapsed.

Do I believe that the government is purposefully keeping the American people in the dark as to what really happened on 9/11/01? You bet I do! Do I believe that there is a cover-up of crucial evidence related to 9/11 by both the federal government and the national news media? You bet I do! 

August 19, 2011 

Pray tell, where do you find anything in the New Testament about churches joining with the State, or being incorporated by the State, or being required to submit to the State? It's not there! The 501c3 corporation status has turned the Lord's Church into mere creatures of the State.

Therefore, please remember, when you "worship" inside these government corporations, when you give your tithes and offerings to these government corporations, you are NOT supporting "the Lord's work." You are supporting the work of the State. You might as well be paying taxes; it amounts to virtually the same thing. The same is true for all these TV preachers. They are all 501c3 incorporated.

This is why many pastors do not speak out on the burning issues of the day. This is why neither he nor his church will take a stand for anything. This is why he won't "get involved in politics." He is a corporate officer of the State, and he will not jeopardize his standing as such.

I don't care how "nice" the preacher is! It matters not how knowledgeable you think he is of the Scriptures. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans if he knows Hebrew and Greek and how many degrees he has behind his name. If he is a corporate officer of the State, he will never preach the "whole counsel of God;" he will never be willing to stand in front of his congregation and tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God." He won't do it! Why? He knows he is a State corporate officer, and he knows where the line is drawn. Ditto for the church deacons and trustees (I mean, corporate officers) that support him.

If the so-called "Religious Right" would get as excited about replacing these government-toadies (called pastors) that we have in our "churches" and putting honest-to-God, tell-it-like-it-is, fearless prophets in their pulpits as they are about replacing a "liberal" and putting some so-called "conservative" Republican in the White House, we really could have revival in America! The problem is not the White House; the problem is the church house!

Is it any wonder that the donor base for these religious-talking Republican politicians is mostly identical to the donor base for these religious-talking government corporations called churches? They are Siamese twins! This is why the "Religious Right" will never offend the GOP establishment: they are both sucking from the same teat! And the sow providing the milk for both is the federal government, via its non-profit corporation status, corporate welfare programs, and endless cash for the Warfare State. …

The motivating factor for most of these government corporations is the same as it is for private corporations: money. Money drives everything they do. The workshops, seminars, how-to manuals, etc., are all geared to making these government corporations more attractive and appealing to the donor base. Just as Jesus said to the moneychangers in His day, these corporate officers have turned God's House into "a den of thieves."

August 23, 2013 

I recently read a column by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts that was so good I wish I had written it. …

I realize that anyone who dares to contradict accepted politically correct dogma is demonized as being "radical," "extremist," or racist," and some people have tried to characterize Dr. Roberts in that vein. But it should be obvious to any honest and objective person that Paul Craig Roberts has one of the most distinguished resumes of anyone in America today. 

Paul recently wrote a column entitled, "Humanity Is Drowning In Washington's Criminality". I realize it is difficult for most Americans to conceive the idea that their federal government could actually be criminal, but the case Roberts makes in his column cannot be tossed aside as the ranting of some right-wing nut (as if there are no left-wing nuts).

Roberts writes, 

"Americans will soon be locked into an unaccountable police state unless US Representatives and Senators find the courage to ask questions and to sanction the executive branch officials who break the law, violate the Constitution, withhold information from Congress, and give false information about their crimes against law, the Constitution, the American people and those in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. Congress needs to use the impeachment power that the Constitution provides and cease being subservient to the lawless executive branch. The US faces no threat that justifies the lawlessness and abuse of police powers that characterize the executive branch in the 21st century.

"Impeachment is the most important power of Congress. Impeachment is what protects the citizens, the Constitution, and the other branches of government from abuse by the executive branch. If the power to remove abusive executive branch officials is not used, the power ceases to exist. An unused power is like a dead letter law. Its authority disappears. By acquiescing to executive branch lawlessness, Congress has allowed the executive branch to place itself above law and to escape accountability for its violations of law and the Constitution.

"National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper blatantly lied to Congress and remains in office. Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency, has also misled Congress, and he remains in office. Attorney General Holder avoids telling Congress the truth on just about every subject, and he also remains in office. The same can be said for President Obama, one of the great deceivers of our time, who is so adverse to truth that truth seldom finds its way out of his mouth.”

August 7, 2010 

You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don't know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don't want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, "Ron Paul"?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a "Democrat in Drag" to borrow from Steve Farrell.

That brings me to one of the people that the talking heads at Fox News and other GOP propaganda centers are routinely discussing as their 2012 Presidential hopeful: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

According to Reuters News, "Republican former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday [July 25th] he will decide after November's congressional elections whether he will make a run for the White House in 2012." 

Here's what Gingrich is looking at: he wants to see if the GOP makes significant gains in both houses of Congress in the November elections. If the GOP wins one house (especially if enough real conservatives win), I predict Gingrich will enter the race. So he can ride a conservative wave into the White House in 2012? No! So he can derail any potential conservative momentum that the Tea Parties might be able to create in this year's November elections. You see, Newt Gingrich is the Grinch Who Stole Conservatism from the GOP. 

Some of us are old enough to remember Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that produced huge Republican victories in both houses of Congress back in 1994. However, what did that "Conservative Revolution" (as it was called then) actually produce? The answer: NOTHING! Newt's promise of smaller government was immediately forgotten. Instead, Gingrich, along with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, facilitated and helped orchestrate further expansion of the federal government. The "less government" theme that swept house freshmen such as Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sonny Bono, Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth, John Shadegg, and J.C. Watts into Congress quickly evaporated and this new neocon Republican Party was born. 

January 27, 2009 

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion. 

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area — perhaps the central area — where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders — including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite — constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing? 

September 24, 2008 

Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, "I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate." …

I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. …

The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.

Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight.

I want to return America to constitutional government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the federal government accordingly. 

These other articles you oughta read in their entirety. (To be honest, I'm tired of copying excerpts and, truthfully, EACH article mentioned above should also be read in its entirety.) 

August 21, 2010 
Sez STMcC: “Good selections all, but especially 12/23/1913.” 

January 30, 2009 

August 11, 2007 

And more of Pastor Chuck Baldwin's articles can be found HERE.

Americonned Sheeple, you need-a... READ, PRAY, LOVE. 

~ Stephen T. McCarthy 

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.


  1. I've not read each article in its entirety, but I intend to - you've succeeded in making me want to check out more of Chuck Baldwin.

    Lately, I'm perpetually baffled by political parties. There is NO party that is true to my personal beliefs at this time and I am so tired of the lack of firm foundations and core beliefs that are laid out on the table...and, scary as it may seem (insert ghostly howl)...adhered to with a vengeance.

    Don't get me started on churches (said the ex-wife of an evangelist).

    1. CHERDO ~
      I am not a churchgoer and don't even refer to myself as a "Christian" for various reasons, although I know Christ Yeshua, have a personal relationship with Him, and am a very devoted student of The Bible who has read it cover-to-cover each of the past 20 years.

      However, if Chuck Baldwin had a church in my area, I could see myself attending on a regular basis. That's how much I support his views and appreciate his passion and willingness to take hard stands against this age of evil in America and the world.

      I hope you enjoy many of his articles as I have. He's certainly no weak-kneed man of God, that's for sure. I believe he means what he says, and stands fast for his beliefs, and that's pretty rare today.

      I'm glad these excerpts were able to intrigue you enough to explore further. That was my hope in posting them.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

    2. (I wasn't kidding about being the ex-wife of an evangelist.)

      Personal relationship, not perfect attendance, is what it is all about, brother.

    3. CHERDO ~
      I agree with you.

      I really wouldn't mind finding a "church" I could attend regularly. The problem is that I hold some pretty "unorthodox" beliefs - all of which I sincerely believe are supported by The Holy Bible - and so any orthodox Christian church I'd attend would also be preaching some important theological positions that I firmly disagree with. I would feel like a hypocrite listening to that week after week. Plus, I know I would always be tempted to raise my hand and dispute with the pastor in the middle of his sermons. So... best that I don't go there.

      On the other hand, while a few beliefs I hold CAN be found promoted in some New Age churches, I am definitely not a new ager and have a well-founded distrust of the occult.

      So, I'm sort of the man without a church.

      Many years ago, I prayed to Christ and asked Him to lead me to the church of His choosing, a church I could attend and really gain something from.

      So far, that prayer has gone unanswered, which tells me that Yeshua has determined that I don't currently NEED to be in a church, and that my daily Bible study and my relationship with Him IS my church and is all I really require, at least right now.

      Do you still consider yourself to be a "Christian" despite an apparently unsatisfactory marriage to a Christian minister? Do you belong to a particular denomination? (If you don't mind my asking.)

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

  2. I read your entire blog post. I admit to NOT having read each and every article referenced in their entirety, BUT I did read ALL of ‘The Spirit of Party’ 10/14/14, ‘A Very Real New World Order 1/27/09, and More on the New world Order 1/30/09. To my way of thinking and with the knowledge I’ve gained from various experiences, and study over the course of several years all three of these articles were ‘spot on’.

    Since the very day I first registered to vote I have NEVER affiliated with a political party. Although many tried to coerce me to do so; usually with the line; ‘so what, you declare a party affiliation, once you enter that voting booth, you vote for whomever you want’. Yeah, well that didn’t work out so good for Mr. Baldwin, now did it. As he states, my word is important to me, so, why would I want to link my word, work, or my name with scoundrels or worse.

    His articles on the NWO are sad but true, particularly the fact that most people, and I mean the regular people, the voting public, refuse to even acknowledge the fact that the NWO exists and that the current world governments are doing everything in their power to move us closer and closer to accepting, no begging fo,r ‘it’ as our new and improved form of bondage.

    With respect to the excerpt you quoted from the article ‘An Open Letter to my Friends in Law Enforcement 9/6/14 he expresses my sentiments exactly. (I had written a rather long comment to one of your blog posts about law enforcement, that I never published, that agreed with Mr. Baldwin’s assessment of the situation.) I don’t state this to let certain personalities who enter into law enforcement ‘off the hook’, but today as a part of their training, they are taught the ‘us vs. them’ mentality. The ‘them’ being every single citizen, not simply the ‘real’ criminals. Law enforcement in the US is no longer about protecting it’s honest citizenry, but rather protecting law enforcement itself, and those who stand as their rulers and leaders. I personally have no doubt that they, as well as the US military, will turn their weapons on us, should we refuse to surrender ours, or refuse to comply with some other unconstitutional requirement.

    I have a deep suspicion of organized religion. I think those who expound Christian values need to be scrutinized as carefully as those who chose to run for political office. I trust rather a man (or woman) who lives by those values and truly tries to follow in the footsteps of Christ, than one who preaches. For often those who preach the loudest live their lives completely without practice.

    From this sampling and your good word, it would seem that Mr. Baldwin both preaches and practices the Word of the Savior, as well as trying to warn his neighbors.

    I will try to make the time to read the remaining articles in their entirety.

    1. FAE ~
      You were ahead of me on the political front. (When I was old enough to vote, I registered as a Republican, like my parents were. I'm now an Independent and have been for many years.)

      It was probably in 1990 or '91 when I first began to hear about 'The New World Order', but it wasn't until early 1994 that I became absolutely convinced about it and started becoming very knowledgeable about it.

      By no coincidence, it was also at nearly the exact same time in 1994 that I had my life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ. Looking back on it later, after having become pretty knowledgeable about The Holy Bible, I realized that the NWO is what is described in The Bible's book of 'Revelation'. So it makes perfect sense that Christ would come to me at the same time that convincing information about the NWO order did. I was and am being prepared for Biblical events that are unfolding in OUR lifetime.

      As for cops, I certainly agree that they have become increasingly more militarized in the last few decades and the "Us Vs. Them" mindset is being instilled in them by evil forces including the United States Federal Government.

      However, I can also say with no equivocation that it's not difficult to inculcate an "Us Vs. Them" mentality into police officers because most of them already have a brutal, egotistical, aggressive nature to begin with, even before they enter the police academies.

      I know of what I speak because of my experience as a Police Explorer in the early 1970s. That "Us Vs. Them" and "The Ends Justifies The Means" mentality was plainly evident to me in most of the cops I personally knew very well at the time. And that was barely at the outer edge of the beginning of the militarization of police departments. It pretty much started with SWAT teams, and Los Angeles was well ahead of the curve when it came to that. And Los Angeles County is where I was a Police Explorer and associated with cops - worked at the police station and had unlimited access to all parts of the station - on a daily basis.

      And I agree with you generally on organized religion. I am not sour on it completely, and think it does some good, but... I've learned "NOT TO BE A JOINER" and to go my own individual way for the sake of my reputation.

      I am not a member of ANY religious or political association or, for that matter, ANY organization of ANY kind. I prefer to be a maverick and support people on a wholly individualistic basis.

      Great comment, FAE!

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.