Constitution Party of Massachusetts

• Pornography is protected speech, but prayer is not.
• A 16 year can have an abortion but she can’t smoke a cigarette.
• Seat belts are mandatory, citizenship is not.
• Homosexuality is love, opposition to it is hate.
• We worship Mother Earth and deny Father God.
• Hip-hop vulgarity floods the school’s hallway while Gospel expression is censored.
• Public school students told to have sex and to do drugs, but Bible preaching is forbidden.

• I am personally opposed to slavery, but I am for a slave-owners right to choose.
  
• I personally oppose rape, but I am for a rapist’s right to personal choice.
  
• I personally oppose murder, but I am for a murderer’s right to do it.
  
• I personally oppose lynching, but I am for a white man’s justice.
  
• I am personally opposed to incest, but I am for father’s rights.
  
• I personally oppose suicide bombings, but who am I to tell another how he can express his faith?
  
• I personally oppose border jumping, but I am for a man’s right to choose what is best for his family.

In 1999 Coach Daubenmire was sued by the ACLU for praying with his teams while coaching high school in Ohio. He now spends his energy fighting for Christian principles in the public domain.

E-Mail: coach@ptsalt.com

By Any Other Name, Amnesty Bill Still Stinks!
By Chuck Baldwin
May 22, 2007

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070522.html

One of Shakespeare’s most oft-quoted phrases comes from Romeo and
Juliet,
where Juliet asks Romeo: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
by any
other name would smell as sweet.” Accordingly, President Bush and
Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid can call their immigration bill by any name
they
want to, but it is still amnesty, and it still stinks!

Hopefully, readers are aware that the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill is
being
debated in the U.S. Senate this week with both the White House and
senate
leaders hopeful of quick passage.

If it passes, the proposed immigration bill would immediately give all
12-20
million illegal aliens already in the United States “probationary”
citizenship. It would also put an estimated 60 million immigrants on
the
path to citizenship over the next 20 years. In exchange for granting
U.S.
citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, the bill promises to
better
protect America’s borders.

However, what is abundantly clear is that the federal government’s idea
of
border enforcement is totally without meaning or merit. Consider the
fact
that the United States already has copious laws against illegal
immigration,
including punishment for businesses that hire illegals. So, what good
have
these laws done? Very little.

No one with any sense of objective truth believes that the Bush
administration is serious about border enforcement. No one. Therefore,
how
can anyone believe that more promises of border enforcement will
accomplish
any more than with existing laws?

The plain truth is, President George W. Bush, Senators Ted Kennedy,
John
McCain, et al., are simply hell-bent to provide amnesty to tens of
millions
of illegal aliens, and this bill will give them the power to do it.

Do I need to convince readers that any kind of amnesty will put America
on
the fast track to ruin? The United States simply cannot absorb upwards
of 60
million, mostly unskilled, non-English-speaking, migrants in the next
few
years. It just is not possible.

Already, America is reaping the consequences of unbridled illegal
immigration. Americans are being squeezed out of work by illegal
immigrants
who will work at significantly reduced wages. Of course our
unemployment is
low: Americans are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

Add to the strain of the loss of good paying jobs the strain of an
ever-growing financial burden to taxpayers. For example, Heritage
Foundation
scholar Robert Rector recently released a new study entitled, “The
Fiscal
Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer.” In the report,
Rector
notes that two-thirds of the millions of illegal aliens in this country
fall
into the category of “low-skill” households. Contrast that with just
10% of
native-born Americans falling into that category.

Writing for National Review Online, Byron York states, “Rector found
that in
2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill
households received an average of $32,138 per household–the great
majority
in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits…. Against that,
Rector
found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes….
In
the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household
received
$22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes…”

According to World Net Daily, “If the lower figure of 12 million
illegal
aliens is used for estimation purposes, the [current] total tax burden
translates to $2.2 trillion.”

It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to calculate that with an added
60
million mostly unskilled immigrants moving into the country, the
financial
cost would be more than taxpayers could possibly pay for.

Consider also the toll upon America’s safety and security. Already, law
enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge of Latin
American
“ultra-violent” gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 U.S. states.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one gang called
MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th
Street
Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force
director Brian Truchon, “When the gang migrates throughout the U.S.,
there
is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to
Central America.”

Retired lawman Jim Kouri recently wrote, “According to Lt. Steve
Rogers, a
decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of
murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are
illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal
aliens
are preying on U.S. citizens.”

As I have previously noted in this column, illegal aliens already
murder at
least 12 Americans every day. Think of the potential violence that
another
60 million aliens will bring. Not to mention the threat of potential
terrorism.

America’s law enforcement communities are keenly aware of the
probability
that international terrorists have already infiltrated the United
States due
to our lack of border control.

For example, William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal
Immigration
Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), recently said, “MS-13 and other
illegal
immigrant gangs are bringing in the illegals, drugs, heavy weapons, and
possibly terrorists. The biggest threat from their members is contained
in
the multiple intelligence reports provided to Congress indicating that
Al-Qaeda and MS-13 are now working together to smuggle terrorist
operatives
and materials into the U.S.”

In light of all of the above, how in the world can President Bush and
senate
leaders proceed with plans to explode the growth of unskilled
immigrants
into the United States? Perhaps the answer lies within the details of
the
bill.

According to World Net Daily, “The controversial ‘Secure Borders,
Economic
Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,’ which would grant
millions
of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain
conditions,
contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity
Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense
integration, WND
has learned.

“The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites
the
SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico
and
Canada March 23, 2005–an agreement that has been criticized as a
blueprint
for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of
North
America.

“‘It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should
accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help
generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico,
which
will lead to reduced migration,’ the draft legislation states on page
211 on
the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.”

Aw! There is the underlying reason President Bush is willing to incur
the
wrath of his conservative constituents: he is determined to implement
the
SPP and pave the way for the emerging North American Union before he
leaves
office. The amnesty bill being pushed through the Senate this week is
absolutely essential to this end.

As Juliet said, “What’s in a name?” Bush, Kennedy, McCain and Company
are
playing word games with us. They know this is amnesty. You know this is
amnesty. And millions of illegal aliens know this is amnesty.

If it walks like amnesty, talks like amnesty, looks like amnesty, and
smells
like amnesty, it’s amnesty! Now, the question is, Will the American
people
sit back and let it happen?

Dear Reader, this might be our last chance to stop the push for amnesty
for
millions of illegal aliens. If you have never voiced your protest to
your
civil leaders, I urge you to do so now!

Here are two links for information on how you can make your voice heard
in
Washington, D.C. Don’t delay! We must act TODAY!

Tell the Senate, No Amnesty for Illegals here:

http://www.grassfire.org/19042/offer.asp

Call the D.C. switchboard here:

http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/05-18-07.html

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

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

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

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

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

By Chuck Baldwin
May 8, 2007

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070508.html
 

No less than ten Republican hopefuls in the 2008 White House race participated in the first national GOP debate last Thursday, May 3. Even before the 90-minute debate had concluded, media pundits were declaring that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had won.
 
Even my friend, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough wrote, “During the debate I was flooded by e-mails from Republican activists and voters who told me Romney was dominating the debate.” Scarborough went on to say, “Among those Red State Republicans (who will elect their party’s next nominee), Mitt Romney won while McCain and Giuliani failed to meet expectations.”
 
As with most political pundits, the entire focus of the debate centered on only three contenders: Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Romney. In fact, in his post-debate summary, Scarborough’s only reference to anyone other than these three names was a fleeting mention of the “Sam Brownbacks of the world.”
 
Yet, when one looks at MSNBC’s own poll, a much different picture emerges. According to this poll, there was a clear winner alright, but his name was not McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. It was Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
 
Consider the before and after polls, as they appear on MSNBC’s web site. See it at:
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/
 
The after-debate poll numbers for six of the “lesser” contenders were almost identical to the before-debate numbers. Almost identical. I’m speaking of Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson. It is safe to say, that none of these men obtained any significant support as a result of their debate performance. However, the same is not true for Ron Paul.
 
Before the debate, Paul’s polling numbers had a negative rating of 47%. His neutral number was 44%, and his positive number was a paltry 9%.
 
Compare those numbers with those of the three media favorites, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.
 
John McCain’s pre-debate polling numbers included a negative rating of 40%. His neutral number was 29%, and his positive rating was 31%. Rudy Giuliani’s pre-debate poll numbers included a negative rating of 34%, a neutral rating of 25%, and a positive rating of 41%. Mitt Romney’s pre-debate negative number stood at 41%. His neutral number was 31%, and his positive number stood at 28%.
 
Obvious to just about anyone is that Rudy Giuliani took a commanding lead into the first GOP debate. His positive number eclipsed his closest rival by more than ten percentage points.
 
However, everything changed immediately following the debate. Giuliani’s positive number fell from 41% to a pitiful 24%. His negative number rose from 34% to 42%. And his neutral number rose from 25% to 34%. Clearly, Rudy Giuliani lost a lot of support in that first debate.
 
What about John McCain? Once again, his debate performance did not help his campaign. In this regard, Joe Scarborough has it right.
 
McCain’s positive rating fell from a pre-debate high of 31% to a post-debate low of 19%. His neutral rating jumped from 29% to 37%.
 
Remember, media pundits seem to agree that Mitt Romney was the big debate winner. So, how do his numbers stack up?
 
Romney’s post-debate positive rating DROPPED from a pre-debate high of 28% to 27%. His negative number also fell slightly from 41% to 37%. And Romney’s neutral number rose from 31% to 36%. I ask you, Do those numbers reflect victory? I think not.
 
Compare the numbers of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney to those of Ron Paul’s. Remember, before the debate, Paul scored a dismal 9% positive score. But after the debate, Paul’s positive score skyrocketed to an astounding 38%. In other words, Ron Paul’s positive number is eleven percentage points higher than his closest rival. Paul’s negative number went from a pre-debate high of 47% to a post-debate low of 26%. His neutral number also dropped significantly from 44% to 36%.
 
Without question or reservation, Ron Paul was the clear and obvious winner of the first GOP debate, at least according to the more than eighty-four thousand respondents (at the time of this writing) who took the MSNBC online poll.
 
Which leads to another question: Are the media elite watching the same debate that the rest of us are watching or are they looking at something else? I think they are looking at something else. And that something else is money.
 
They see only the GOP’s “Big Three” as having the potential to raise $50 million-plus for their respective presidential campaigns. That means, in their minds, all others are also-rans who have no chance to win and are therefore ignored. And let’s face it folks, when it comes to Washington politics, there are only three considerations that even register with big-media: money, money, and money.
 
However, make no mistake about it: Ron Paul clearly and convincingly won the first GOP debate. It would be nice if someone in the mainstream media would acknowledge that fact.
 
In addition, someone in the mainstream media should ask why Ron Paul did so well in post-debate polling, because I predict that Paul’s upcoming performance in South Carolina on May 15 will be equally spectacular. He may even emerge from that debate as a serious challenger for the nomination. I personally hope he does.
 
Ron Paul is the only candidate on the Republican ticket who would seriously challenge the status quo of the neocons currently running our country into the ground. He has a voting record unlike anyone in Congress.
 
As has been reported by many, Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal registration on gun ownership, has never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government. Furthermore, he voted against the Patriot Act and was one of only a handful of congressmen that voted against the Iraq War.
 
Furthermore, it was Ron Paul who introduced the Sanctity of Human Life bill in Congress, which, had it passed, would have granted federal protection to every unborn child and would have nullified Roe v Wade. In addition, Ron Paul is one of the biggest opponents to Bush’s push to integrate the United States into a trilateral North American Community. Ron Paul also supports ending the Income Tax and dismantling the Internal Revenue Service. In short, Ron Paul is big-government’s worst nightmare.
 
All of the above became obvious to voters during the six-plus minutes that Ron Paul had the national spotlight. That is why his poll numbers surged following the debate. Imagine what could happen if Paul is given more time to articulate his constitutionalist agenda. He could win more than the debate–he could win the election.
 
(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.

By Chuck Baldwin
May 4, 2007

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070504.html

I suppose there was a time in American politics when there was a significant difference between conservatives and liberals, between Republicans and Democrats, and between Christians and unbelievers. However, with only limited exceptions, that time has largely gone. When it comes to the salient issues that are currently waging war against America’s future survival, it is extremely difficult to distinguish those differences.
 
If one removes the issues of abortion and gay rights from the debate, there is precious little that distinguishes the modern Christian conservative from his liberal counterpart.
 
Federal spending sure doesn’t apply. President George W. Bush and his fellow “conservative” Republicans have the dubious distinction of outspending practically every administration and Congress during the entire 20th century. Only the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations compare to the insatiable spending habits of the current administration.
 
Then there is the illegal alien invasion currently taking place in America. What was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago and only a minor nuisance before Bush was elected President has now become a full-fledged assault that threatens our country’s very survival. And remember, the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government during the six years that the bulk of this invasion was taking place. And, except for a few conservative congressmen (mostly in the House of Representatives), not only did they do nothing to stop it, they sat back and watched as President Bush actively encouraged and facilitated it, something he is doing to this very day.
 
Then there is the obsequious manner in which our national Christian leaders treat “big-name” Republican presidential contenders. This is especially disconcerting when one considers that many of these contenders are people with very dubious track records: either bitterly betraying conservative principles or, in some cases, openly subscribing to positions that are downright antithetical to those principles.
 
For example, conservatism does not have a worse Judas turncoat than Newt Gingrich. His track record as Speaker of the House is more than dismal. Just talk to any of the members of the House freshman class of 1995. Ask Joe Scarborough. Ask Steve Largent. Ask Bob Barr. Ask them if Newt Gingrich is a conservative.
 
They would, no doubt, remind you that it was Newt Gingrich who used the power of the Speaker’s office to rush GATT and the WTO through a lame-duck session of Congress before the more conservative ‘95 freshman class arrived on Capitol Hill, because he knew they would derail passage of these two draconian pieces of legislation.
 
I’m sure they would also remind you that one of the first things Gingrich did after being elected to Congress in 1978 was support the creation of the Department of Education, and Most Favored Nation trade status for Red China. They would also remind you that Newt Gingrich voted for taxpayer dollars to be used to facilitate trade with the communist Chinese.
 
Furthermore, does anyone need to be reminded that Newt Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is nothing more than a cabal of elitists dedicated to the promotion of global government?
 
Gingrich proved himself to be such a Judas that he had to resign or face ouster by the very conservatives he professed to lead. And if one wants further testimony regarding Gingrich’s infidelity, ask his first two wives.
 
Yet, Newt Gingrich is being lauded and cheered as a “true American statesman,” to quote one national Christian leader. That leader also said, “Mr. Gingrich is certainly one of the brightest men I know in public life today, and he is becoming one of our great ambassadors for reawakening the spirit of our Founders.”
 
Then there is Rudy Giuliani. The same Christian leader who lavished praise upon Newt Gingrich recently wrote this about Rudy Giuliani: “I personally have great respect for Mr. Giuliani in terms of his leadership in law and order and national defense issues. In these areas, I believe he would be a potentially great president.”
 
This seems to suggest that if Giuliani could just convince us that he is now genuinely “pro-life” and “pro-family,” we Christian conservatives should support him. But is that really all there is that qualifies a candidate for President? Would Giuliani truly be a “potentially great president” when it comes to “law and order” issues?
 
Are we supposed to forget that Rudy Giuliani has been one of the most outspoken proponents of gun control in the entire country? Does it not matter that for years Giuliani used the power of his office to disarm honest American citizens and trample the Second Amendment?
 
For example, Gun Owners of America has this to say about Rudy Giuliani’s track record on gun control: “[T]he record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation.
 
“In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn’t go far enough.
 
“The President, largely crediting Giuliani for the idea, enthusiastically sent Attorney General Janet Reno off to develop a gun licensing and registration system . . . . 
 
“In May of 1994, as the battle over the ban on certain semi-automatic firearms reached its height, Giuliani threw his support behind the ban. On the eve of the final vote, he noted that so-called assault weapons ‘have no legitimate purpose.’ 
 
“When the ban passed, Giuliani commented that, ‘This is an important step towards curtailing the indiscriminate proliferation of guns across the nation.’”
 
Is this the kind of “law and order” that Christian conservatives expect from their elected leaders today? If so, they should throw away the Bill of Rights and embrace the Communist Manifesto, because the latter more closely mirrors Giuliani’s brand of law and order.
 
Dear fellow Christians, please wake up! Gun control is not a secondary issue. Runaway, out-of-control federal spending is not a secondary issue. The invasion of America by millions of illegal aliens is not a secondary issue. The creation of a North American Community, which integrates the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, is not a secondary issue. The NAFTA superhighway currently being constructed is not a secondary issue. The abuse of our Bill of Rights under the Patriot Act is not a secondary issue. The blatant disregard for constitutional government by our elected leaders is not a secondary issue.
 
There is more to a candidate’s qualification for public office than his or her opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Are we really so shallow and undiscerning that we cannot see what our political and corporate leaders are doing to our country? Do we not recognize evil when we see it? Do we really think that we can ignore these issues and not pay the consequences?
 
We are in desperate need of leaders who will distinguish themselves as standing foursquare on the fundamental principles upon which America was founded. We need leaders who will respect the U.S. Constitution and who will aggressively stop the invasion taking place across our southern border. We need leaders who will rein in federal spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. We need leaders who will refuse to allow the United States to be integrated into a North American Community of any kind.
 
And most of all, we need Christian conservatives to wake up to what is going on in this country, and to stop trying to grovel before the neocons in the Republican Party, and to start acting like real conservatives again.
 
(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