Constitution Party of Massachusetts

By Chuck Baldwin
April 27, 2007
 

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070427.html
 

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by Congress in 2003 and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Pro-life conservatives around the country are enthusiastically hailing this ruling as a first step toward reversing the infamous 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which legalized abortion on demand.
 
For example, Rev. Frank Pavone voiced the support of Priests for Life saying, “We are grateful to all who worked so hard to pass this law and to educate the public about this unspeakably violent procedure.”
 
Dr. Paul Schenck, Executive Director of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill said, “In its opinion, the Court today has begun to right a terrible wrong.”
 
Troy Newman, leader of Operation Rescue, said the decision was “another in a string of recent victories for the pro-life movement.” He went on to say, “This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation.”
 
In a press release, the Christian Coalition of America said, “With today’s Supreme Court decision, it is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v Wade decision in 1973 will also be struck down by the court.”
 
I, too, am happy to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the illegality of certain Partial Birth Abortions, which are actually more correctly identified as infanticides. After all, since the Roe decision in 1973, over 40 million little innocent, unborn babies have been mercilessly, but legally, slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers. So, any ruling that has the result of limiting the legal killing of babies is a positive development.
 
However, I only wish I could be as enthusiastic about the Court’s PBA decision as the others quoted in this column, but I am not. I certainly do not believe this is the beginning of the end for abortion on demand in America. Actually, I fear that this decision serves only to further augment abortion on demand in the legal framework of America.
 
For one thing, the ruling clearly distinguishes between abortion and infanticide and concludes that Partial Birth Abortion actually qualified as infanticide, which was never legalized in the Roe decision. Of course, this is correct, but stop and think about it: In an attempt to accommodate the Roe decision, physicians, mothers, and the various states and communities in which these procedures took place were allowed to commit this type of infanticide (without encumbrance or prosecution) for over thirty years.
 
Thirty years of Republican domination of the Supreme Court. Thirty years of electing myriads of “pro-life” Republicans to the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Thirty years of promises. Thirty years of fundraising by scores of “pro-life” groups. And now, thirty years later, what we have is the U.S. Supreme Court limiting, not abortion, but infanticide.
 
For example, in responding to the euphoria of many pro-life groups’ claiming that the PBA decision has begun the legal process of overturning Roe, the Mobile Press-Register said, “The court has done no such thing; and in the majority opinion, justices pointed out that the ban doesn’t violate a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.” The Press-Register got it exactly right.
 
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy (a faithful defender of abortion rights) said, “The Act allows, among other means, a commonly used and generally accepted method, so it does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”
 
Did you get that? The justice writing the majority opinion said that the ruling “does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”
 
At this point, it would be very helpful for everyone in the pro-life community, including those from groups mentioned above, to read Pastor Bob Enyart’s excellent analysis of this ruling. Go to:
 
http://www.covenantnews.com/enyart070424.htm
 
Pastor Enyart points out that not only does the Partial Birth Abortion ban not stop any legal abortions, it does not even stop all Partial Birth Abortions. In his lengthy review of the Court’s ruling, he notes that even a Partial Birth Abortion may be performed as long as the baby has not been delivered past its navel.
 
You read it right. This ruling authorizes the abortionist to take the baby out of the mother’s womb up to the point where the baby’s navel is visible and still perform his dastardly work of killing the baby. And there is more.
 
The bill even authorizes the abortionist to kill the partially-delivered baby if the baby has been delivered past its navel, if the baby passed the “critical point by accident or inadvertence.” (p. 18 III, A)
 
Of course, this means that late-term abortions are still legal in the United States. Therefore, how can pro-life groups really believe this ruling is the precursor to Roe’s demise?
 
We know that Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have already expressed willingness to possibly overturn Roe. I believe Samuel Alito might also be willing to overturn Roe. Chief Justice John Roberts is yet unknown on this issue. As for Kennedy, forget it. He would never vote to overturn Roe.
 
Therefore, as the Court is currently configured, we are at least one vote, and maybe two, short of the five necessary to overturn Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court level.
 
However, as I have already pointed out in this column, Congress could have already overturned Roe anytime it wanted to. It could have exercised its authority found in Article III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution and removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. Consider, too, that both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by “pro-life” Republicans from 2001 through 2006, and nothing was done to end abortion on demand.
 
As it is, “pro-life” groups around the nation are hailing this latest Supreme Court ruling as the beginning of the end for abortion on demand. I only wish that were true. Instead, more than one million innocent unborn babies will continue to be murdered in their mothers’ wombs each year, more phony pro-life Republicans will use abortion as a sales pitch in an attempt to obtain the votes of social conservatives, and “pro-life” groups will continue sending out more fundraising letters.
 
At the end of the day, I wonder if we are really as concerned about ending abortion on demand as we are about raising money and promoting a political agenda?
 
(c) Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Baldwin is also the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show  “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

By Chuck Baldwin
April 24, 2007

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070424.html

Last week, I was privileged to speak before the National Committee Meeting of the Constitution Party assembled in Boise, Idaho. After a two-day whirlwind speaking tour in Utah earlier in the week, I delivered this address to the assemblage in Boise. This is an edited version of that Idaho speech.
 
Christians tell me constantly, “Chuck, we must elect a Christian President.” And it seems that all they look for and all they expect from their civil magistrates is that he or she make public profession of Christianity. But most every politician professes to be a Christian–at least every two years, or in the case of a presidential candidate, every four years.
 
However, it is incredible how gullible and naïve today’s Christians have become. I submit to you that had Al Gore or John Kerry been elected President and promoted many of the policies and practices of George W. Bush, the Religious Right would have been up in arms years ago.
 
But because a “Christian Republican” is in the White House, he is given a free pass on foible after foible, dereliction after dereliction, and compromise after compromise. Beyond that, when someone dares to criticize the unconstitutional policies of this President, Christians attack the messenger with a vengeance.
 
For example, I had a prominent leader of the Religious Right command me, not ask or beseech me, mind you, but demand that I stop criticizing the policies of President Bush. No discussion of the issues. No specific example of how I misrepresented the truth or any appeal to reason, just a bold demand to “stop it.”
 
But listen to Theodore Roosevelt:
 
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”
 
Roosevelt understood what we all need to understand: America was not founded upon a president or political party. The founding principles of America are contained in three documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
 
The principles of our founding documents created an independent and limited government that recognized the authority of man’s Creator and our ultimate submission to Him. The Declaration of Independence in Paragraph 1 refers to “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
 
What Jefferson was addressing was Natural Law. Our Founding Fathers had all studied the writings of John Locke and other philosophers of the period who taught extensively about Natural Law.  They all understood it. Natural Law is the instinctive understanding of basic morality, the innate understanding of good and evil as provided by our Creator.
 
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law were the chief influence upon the legal philosophy of America’s founders. Those commentaries formed the most authoritative manual of law for over 100 years following the War for Independence.
 
Blackstone wrote: “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . .. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.”
 
For the first time in the history of the world, a nation inculcated the Creator’s will for the government of mankind in its founding documents. Therefore, it does not matter what a politician’s personal denominational affiliation might be or what his Christian profession might be. What matters is that he or she supports, protects, and defends the Constitution of the United States.
 
I realize what I am about to say will surprise many Christians, but I would far rather elect an unbeliever who will support, protect, and defend the Constitution than a believer who will not support, protect, and defend the Constitution. The oath of office is to the Constitution. That is a civil magistrate’s contract with us–the American people.
 
For example, when I hire a plumber or electrician I am not particularly interested in his church affiliation or personal religious profession. I am contracting a job with him, and at the end of the day, I want my plumbing to work and my lights to turn on.
 
When we elect a constitutional office holder, we want him to do what his contract with us demands: he must honor his oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And what most Christians don’t seem to understand is that our founding principles implement the Maker’s will in the body politic.
 
The Declaration in Paragraph 2 states, that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
 
Notice, Jefferson wrote that God, not government, is the author and grantor of independence. The Declaration rightly said that the purpose of government was to “secure [protect] these Rights.” This is all part of “Natural Law.”
 
What Christians further misunderstand is that the Declaration and Constitution contain the principles of Natural Law as taught in God’s revealed Word, the Bible.
 
For example, “Natural Law” itself is found in Rom. 2:14-16. That God is the giver life is found in Gen. 2:7. That God grants liberty is found in Gal. 5:1. The Pursuit of Happiness is found in Eccl. 3:13.
 
Even the Constitution recognizes the worship day of the Christian God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Article 1. Section. 7. Paragraph 2 states, “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) . . .” Notice, the U.S. Constitution exempts Sunday–the day Christians set aside to worship Jesus Christ–from being a legal business day.
 
Furthermore, Article 7 of the Constitution states, “Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September in the year of OUR LORD [emphasis added] one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth.” Notice, the U.S. Constitution concludes by identifying the Lord Jesus Christ as being “our Lord.”
 
The Bill of Rights, too, is built upon “the Laws of Nature’s God.”
 
Colonial Christians understood the command of Scriptures to “preach the Gospel” and to “not [forsake] the assembling of ourselves together.” Thus, the 1st Amendment protects the right of men to peaceably assemble, and the freedom of speech, along with the freedom of religion, and the freedom of the press.
 
What about the 2nd Amendment? Where does one find the right to keep and bear arms in the Scriptures?
 
Look no further than Luke 11:21, where Jesus said, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.” I know at one point Jesus told Peter to put up his sword, but He did not tell him to give up his sword. In fact, on another occasion Jesus said the time would come when, if we did not own a sword, we should sell what we have, if necessary, and buy one.
 
The Roman sword was the equivalent of a modern handgun. It was the most convenient and effective weapon of self-defense available at the time.
 
Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ll take the word of Jesus over the word of Hillary any day!
 
Notice, too, that the 4th Amendment, the law that protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .” is found in Deut. 24:10,11.
 
Furthermore, the 8th Amendment, the law that protects us against “cruel and unusual punishment” is found in Deut. 15:2,3. Even our three coequal branches of government are patterned after the three positional offices of Christ as found in Isaiah 33:22.
 
I said all of that to say this: When we seek to elect men and women to public office, we don’t need them to give lip service to a religious profession; we need them to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
I am also personally convinced that such a person will not often be found in the two major parties, but will most certainly be found in the Constitution Party. Therefore, our nominee (whoever he is), must be willing to clearly articulate the fundamental issues attacking constitutional government today. First on the list is the surrender of our borders and national sovereignty.
 
Take illegal immigration. The real issue is taxes and the creation of international government. The political elite need cheap labor and cheap services so as to depress wages and consumer costs or else Americans would not be able to afford to pay these outlandish, ungodly taxes.
 
Furthermore, make no mistake about this: the international corporate elite need regional government in order to manage the global economy they are constructing. But all that stops when a CP candidate takes office. The day a Constitution Party candidate is sworn in as President of these United States, the SPP, the North American Community, the NAFTA super highway, and the FTAA will come crashing down.
 
The second salient issue to which we must be faithful is the right to keep and bear arms. Had Virginia Tech University not prohibited its faculty and adult students from their lawful right to keep and bear arms, there would have been no massacre.
 
A CP President must be willing to not only reject any new gun control laws, he must be willing to undo the unconstitutional gun control laws enacted by former administrations.
 
The third key issue is the right to life. The Constitution Party is the only national party that is unapologetically 100% pro-life. Therefore, our nominee must be willing to use the bully pulpit to push Congress into supporting Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Human Life bill, which recognizes the personhood of unborn babies from the moment of conception.
 
Furthermore, our candidate must be prepared to tell the nation that no longer will the federal government use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. We will respect the 4th Amendment, which protects the American people against illegal searches and seizures. Therefore, with a Constitutionist in the White House, federal police agencies will not be allowed to tap our phone lines, read our emails and faxes, or monitor our cell phones without due cause and judicial oversight. In other words, the day a CP nominee takes the oath of office, the Orwellian Patriot Act will head to the dumpster.
 
Fifthly, a Constitution Party president will stop the unconstitutional use of our brave men and women in uniform to fight unprovoked, preemptive wars. That means, the day our nominee takes the oath of office, our troops will start coming home from Iraq. Furthermore, we will no longer allow our troops to be used as nation-builders for big oil companies and international bankers, and neither will they be used as policemen for the United Nations.
 
Speaking of the United Nations, the day a CP nominee is elected President, that bunch of Socialists and Marxists at the UN will begin packing their bags and looking for a new home.
 
And one more thing: the day our nominee is sworn in as President, he will begin enforcing U.S. law found in Section 654, Title 10, which was passed with veto-proof bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress in 1993 and found constitutional by several federal courts, which bars homosexuals from serving in the Armed Forces.
 
In conclusion let me say, when those brave men stood on Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, and when Travis and Bowie fought to the death on the ramparts of the Alamo, they were not fighting for some “Lesser of Two Evils” mantra. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor–and signed that pledge in blood–to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. And Ladies and Gentlemen of the Constitution Party, that is exactly what each and every one of us must be willing to do.
 
To learn more about the Constitution Party, go to:
 
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
 
(c) Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Baldwin is also the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show  “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

By Chuck Baldwin
April 10, 2007

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070410.html
 

As I peruse the hundreds of email letters I receive, one observation leaps out at me: in the last few years, there has been a distinct philosophical shift taking place in the reasoning of professing Christians. Somewhere along the way, politicians seem to have been granted a kind of spiritual status. This trend is very troubling and portends great problems for our country. Let me see if I can explain.
 
Whenever I take issue with the policies or actions of President George W. Bush, I am inundated with all kinds of emails from Christians who usually tend to quote Bible passages regarding “spreading gossip” and “not loving a Christian brother,” etc. The same is true when I dare to challenge the statements or actions of notable Christian leaders in the politically oriented Religious Right. What is going on here?
 
I will tell you what is going on: countless millions of Christians have elevated certain politicians and their mouthpieces in the Religious Right into a church-sphere or even into a God-sphere. In other words, because a politician or conservative celebrity claims to be a Christian, they are presumed to be untouchable. Such people must not be criticized or challenged, no matter how unconstitutional or stupid their actions might be, because doing so makes one guilty of some kind of spiritual law against speaking ill of Christian brothers.
 
However, when one seeks to become a political leader (whether elected or not), he or she puts their words, actions, and policies under the microscope of public scrutiny. Such scrutiny is not only healthy, it is absolutely obligatory for a free people. Only enslaved people have not the privilege of holding their rulers and leaders accountable.
 
It is as when the bloody butcher of the former Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, passed away. Millions of Russian people wept and mourned over his death, even though he had personally ordered the torture and slaughter of countless millions of their fellow citizens. Yet, the poor, enslaved masses of Russians, without personal inspection and knowledge of Stalin’s bloodlust, and lacking any personal ability to challenge their Supreme Ruler, had actually come to love the bloodthirsty tyrant.
 
That sounds incredible, but, on a much different level, that is what many Christians are doing today. Because a politician or political personality claims to be a Christian or a conservative, countless millions of unsuspecting and gullible believers become sheep, without the discernment or the ability to hold leaders accountable. As a result, they (and all of us in the process) are being sold into the clutches of internationalism and socialism by the very leaders they passionately defend.
 
Come on folks, get real! A politician is not a pastor. The American people have a sacred duty to the principles of freedom and their posterity to hold their civil magistrates accountable for their policies and actions. Furthermore, if the civil leader is a true Christian, he would have it no other way.
 
Therefore, it should not matter one whit whether the political leader identifies himself as a Christian or as a conservative or as a church member. What should matter is whether he obeys his oath to the Constitution (and to God) and whether he faithfully follows the historic principles of freedom laid down in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
 
As Theodore Roosevelt said, “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
 
America’s founders shared Roosevelt’s sentiment. Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
 
James Madison agreed. He said, “[It] is indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.”
 
America’s most celebrated jurist, Daniel Webster, stated it even more pointedly by saying, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”
 
Webster was right. By simply claming to be “Christians,” today’s politicians are making dupes out of multitudes of believers. They are trusted and revered in much the same way a faithful and beloved pastor would be trusted and revered. No! They are trusted and revered MORE than are their pastors.
 
Pastors would not be able to get by with the lying, deceit, and dishonesty that politicians routinely get by with. Many believers give politicians much more honor than they give to their pastors. How foolish!
 
By nature, most politicians are self-serving opportunists who cannot see past the next election. In fact, many (if not most) of them are downright dishonest. After all, only a dishonest man could raise his hand and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then proceed to ignore and violate it without so much as an afterthought.
 
It is time that Christian people begin seeing their politicians, not as saints who can be blindly trusted, but as sinners whose works must be constantly analyzed and scrutinized in the light of the U.S. Constitution.
 
Forget party labels. Forget church affiliation. Forget personal claims of Christianity. Forget campaign rhetoric. Our civil magistrates have one responsibility: obey the Constitution and be faithful to freedom’s principles contained in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. When civil magistrates do that, support them. When they don’t, oppose them in every way possible, and then vote them out of office at the earliest opportunity. Anything less is unpatriotic, un-American, and, yes, unchristian.
 
(c) Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Baldwin is also the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show  “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com