America At War



The American Flag

America at War.
An interview with Lieutenant Colonel Tom Pardue Sr. US Army (Ret.), former Vice-president of Americans For Constitutional Integrity.
Army Air Force senior pilot
Commentary on American foreign policy, terrorism in the United States, and the growing militant Islamic threat, from a Biblical and Constitutional perspective.

America At War

Mike Baker: Hi, Tom. We haven't talked in a long time. Too long. A horrible incident like the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon sure does force an immediate re-evaluation of one's priorities.

Good ... gosh, Tom. I was incredulous, watching the unfolding drama as the event transpired. What were your personal reactions to the tragedy?

Tom Pardue: Stunned would be an understatement. I watched part of the tragedy again tonight on The Learning Channel. The whole situation is beyond comprehension.

Mike Baker: I want to thank you for this giving me, and the Spirit-filled Church in America this great opportunity. At this point in my life, you are one of very few who I have met that is skilled in American foreign policy issues from a Biblical perspective. As the dust is still swirling in the air of lower Manhattan, the Church and Church leadership in America is in the initial throes of battling to deal with this great tragedy. I pray that we will be able to offer them both valuable insight into the "who's and why's" of this event, as well as viable solutions to hopefully see it doesn't happen again.

Tom Pardue: Mike, I thank you for your kind comments. May God be glorified by my witness and cause me to be faithful.

Mike Baker: At this point, there seem to be two streams of thought that are prevalent in the commentary and response from the Church leadership concerning this tragedy. First I would like to deal with the foreign policy issue; the temporal issue. Some say that this is the result of our "pushy" foreign policy; the "outgrowth of the Social Gospel," as you have called it; America sending in the military as a "Police force" to implement a vague and ambiguous form of "American lifestyle," instead of missionaries and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Could you expound on this?

Tom Pardue: As someone has noted culture is religion externalized and made specific. The historical background of American Christianity is instructive and must be considered for its influence on politics. Historian Mark Noll reported that in 19th century America "Evangelicalism held sway across almost the entire landscape before mid-century." Our friend Steve Wilkins, Pastor and author, has noted that before The Great Unpleasantness of 1861-65 America was known internationally for sending Christian missionaries world wide. This aspect of the fruit of 19th century Evangelicalism is confirmed also by Noll.

Note well that the beginning of the decline of Evangelicalism roughly coincides with the murderous genocidal conflagration some call the "Civil War." This is the war that many argue persuasively was incited by social reformers, Transcendentalists and Unitarians. It is noteworthy that one of the fruits of the Second Great Awakening (ca. 1790-1840) which preceded The Great Unpleasantness was a great fervor for top-down social reform. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed a social reformer. The fruit of the Protestant Reformation bears witness to this. True social reform is a grass roots phenomena. Reformed men reform their families resulting in every cultural institution coming under the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This zeal for top-down social reform from the Second Great Awakening matured into the Social Gospel. Its influence was seen subsequently in the Spanish American War. Here the objects of reform were the Spanish tyrant in Cuba and, in what would be seen as a peculiar irony to this age of religious pluralists, the Roman Catholic churchís stranglehold on Cuban peasants. Christians in America actually wished to use state power to eject the Roman Catholic church from Cuba.

The propagandistís entreaty lead by President Wilson in WWI was "to save the world for democracy." This is perhaps where America first began to overtly "proselytize" for the spread of our lifestyle. Nevertheless, mainstream America remained opposed to foreign interventionism, content instead to support "America First," what the elites pejoratively term as "isolationism." Historians report that this ethos of "America First" was even predominate up to WWII, but was overshadowed by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

With the rise of the influence of the United Nations after WWII foreign interventionism has become normative. At some point when the false gospel of the UN became dominant, the mitigating influence of what remained of the influence of Evangelical Christianity vanished. The Social Gospel with a genesis in the Second Great Awakening was co-opted by humanists. Thus, the UN gospel now has completely supplanted any other influence. Now, men completely ignorant of the fact that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, seek to export liberty to other countries. They are hostile to the fact that liberty developed in this country only because the Gospel of Jesus Christ was brought to this country by the Puritans. They think erroneously that freedom and liberty have been created by men alone and not the fruit of the Gospel.

On the other hand in our foreign interventions we are unwittingly carrying out a Roman catholic doctrine, the doctrine of "subsidiarity." This doctrine was defined by Pope John XXIII in "Pacem in Terris, Encyclical on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justic, Charity, and Liberty." (April 11, 1963). This doctrine in the words of the pope: "This means that the worldwide public authority must tackle and solve problems of an economic, social, political or cultural character which are posed by the universal common good. For, because of the vastness, complexity and urgency of those problems, the public authorities of the individual states are not in a position to tackle them with any hope of a positive solution."

In this encyclical the pope endorses the UN. Many catholics have misrepresented this doctrine as federalism wherein a so-called higher authority intervenes, but does not displace so-called lower authorities. There are many problems with this definition that I will not go into. However, true federalism is defined by the 10th Amendment to the US constitution. True federalism entails a division of powers amongst equals, not amongst superiors and inferiors. It defines specific boundaries that no party may cross. The false Roman Catholic doctrine is subjectively qualified and prescribes no restrictions on the so-called superior. Essentially the so-called superior power may do as it wishes. Civil government is regarded as a tool to cure international cultural pathologies, even those resulting from false religions, not as Godís ministry of justice.

The pope is just like every other humanist when he proclaims that we will have peace through state power. We will never have peace until the pope and all others submit to The Prince of Peace.

Mike Baker: Second, there are those who state, "God did this," and is "judging America" for our apathy, complacency, pride, and rebellion. On the other hand, some say this is simply the result of "the wicked hearts of corrupt men," which is by and large trivial and superficial, not delving into the deeper implications of this happening to a nation that, up top this point, has not seen war and conflict with foreign nationalities within her borders. What is the balance?

Tom Pardue: Interestingly, both propositions are true. This current controversy is both a result of the wicked hearts of corrupt men and Godís judgment. God uses wicked corrupt men to judge wicked corrupt men. While the wicked men believed they were doing what they alone wished, they were accomplishing Godís will. As a doctrinal statement the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) notes "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." This is the testimony of Habakuk 1 and Is. 10:1ff and many other prophets.

Many a humanist talk show host, Rush Limbaugh included, has raged at the idea that America is really, really corrupt and worthy of Godís judgment and chastening. The uniform response is that America is too good to be judged or chastened by God. I personally have been the object of scorn from a talk radio host for expressing this truth being called a coward and namby-pamby. The importance of Godís chastening is the willingness of faithful Christians to perceive Godís warnings through His actions and the willingness of the people to heed His warnings. As Habakuk testified: "I will stand on my guard post And station myself on the rampart; And I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, And how I may reply when I am reproved." HAB 2:1 Jerry Fallwell was correct in his public proclamation which received great scorn. Regrettably, he lacked the resoluteness to stand by his observation.

Solomon wrote "Like one who takes a dog by the ears is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him." PRO 26:17 This should be the creed of the advocate of America First in regards to foreign relations. While the intellectual elites disparage this as isolationism, their argument against it is no deeper than an argument that our isolationism led to WWII. This is no more than special pleading and of no merit against the testimony of The Ruler of the kings of the earth.

One of the slogans popular with the 60ís peace activists was "fighting for peace is like [expletive deleted] for chastity." The irony is that this is true of the wars since WWII, viz, Korea, Vietnam and many of the other little conflicts we participated in or delegated to surrogates. Wars in defense of the homeland are just wars. John Calvin wrote in "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" "Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed . . . to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostily assailed." The important principle is that civil magistrates are to defend their citizens, not prosecute wars to eliminate a perceived threat or to unseat petty tyrants just because we donít like their policies or treatment of their citizens. This is not a pacifist dogma in any way.

By seeking to defend the world, we violate Godís law. It is inevitable that the world sees us as the "ugly American" picking up everyoneís dog by the ears and garnering much enmity. Quite simply we have made our beds and must lie in them, or in the words of a prophet, we have sown the wind and are reaping a whirlwind. Humanist talk show hosts, no matter how popular, will not like this, but it is the truth, nonetheless.

Mike Baker: The Bible says that the civil government has a ministry of justice. Under God they have a Biblical duty to protect their citizens, by bearing "the sword" and being "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4) That is their job. At this point, do you believe it is legitimate for the US government to engage in hostilities with the groups and nations who spearheaded this attack?

Tom Pardue: You have spoken truthfully and echoed the words of Calvin cited above. But, this issue has grown from a valid quest to bring terrorists to justice to one of a coalition to eliminate terrorism from the face of the earth. This is the program presented by President Bush. It is a messianic program with the false god of the USA as deliverer of the oppressed. The sad part is that he doesnít even comprehend this. The USA, UN or any other agency has not been commissioned by God to perform this mission of international protector. The UN has no mission and the USA has a very narrowly defined mission as Calvin noted "that princes be armed . . . to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostily assailed." No matter how noble it seems "the worldís only remaining superpower" does not have an a priori mission to make the world safe. This is the mission of one Whose "name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." ISA 9:6 This is a Messianic prophesy, the false claims of the Muslims, notwithstanding. ISA 9:7 prophesies "There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace . . ." The USA is attempting to raise up a counterfeit kingdom to supplant the power given to Christ. The failure of this kingdom is predictable.

Mike Baker: Outside of internal corrections in the Church, which we will explore further on, what should the Christianís conduct be in dealing with the Federal government, vis-ŗ-vis communications and making their positions known in the months ahead?

Tom Pardue: Tim Wilder noted in "The Chalcedon Report" in regards to American interventionism, "In this century of ghastly behavior by the American elites, what has the church said? . . . [O]n the whole, the church has been not merely ineffective, but inactive. Faced with one hundred years of evil in foreign policy, the church has largely failed to notice that something was wrong. How is this possible?"

Wilder answered his question: "The fact is that very few people reason from moral principles or order their conduct by them. The great majority adopts the attitudes that respected and leading opinion-makers portray as acceptable. As opinion leadership has left the pulpit and gone to the media, Christian moral principles simply fail to enter the consciousness of the public about the policy issues that arise day by day. The only way to change this is for churches to engage in systematic, comprehensive, continuous, and clear training in God's commands for man's conduct in this life. This was not done."

Quite simply we, Protestants, must stop behaving like the victims of Roman Catholicism who let other men falsely bind their consciences without biblical authority and tell them how to think. By all means we should write our legislators and the President. We must sedulously avoid the pitfalls that Wilder exposes as common amongst Christians. We must reason from sound moral principles, Scripturalism, the first principle that should inform all Christian thought. Now the Romanists will argue that they reason from sound moral principles, natural law. This is not Scripturalism, but rationalism, the false notion that logic is the source of all knowledge. As Dr. Robbins has observed "If logic is the source of knowledge, it must of necessity speak with one voice." It doesnít. One manís rationality is to another insanity.

Our correspondence with our legislators must be based on Scripture. It is our duty to evaluate their behavior in the same manner as the prophets of old evaluated the behavior of civil magistrates. Scripture is full of accounts of prophets calling tyrants to repentance for their violation, not of cultural norms, but of Godís law. Our legislators may scoff at our remonstrance, but this is irrelevant. The truth of Scripture is not contingent upon their acceptance of it.

Mike Baker: Militant Islamicism is an issue that, by and large, has escaped the Christian Churchís radar screen. Yet, Islamic terrorism and their anti-Christian persecution is prevalent in many countries that the US government, as well as the United Nations, legitimizes by maintaining diplomatic relations with them.

Tom Pardue: It is pathetic that the US government not only legitimizes them but openly supports them. In many instances our support was to stem the growth of that other failed humanist regime, the Soviet Union. Everyone knows the status of that counterfeit kingdom. We have fought wars in support of Muslims expending valuable lives and national treasure. Most notable is our defense of the tyrannical regime in Kuwait, aka, The Gulf War. Then there was the recent conflict against Yugoslavia in support of the Kosovo Muslims. None of these wars have any Biblical defense. They were undertaken by the messianic state against nasty people because they were nasty people. Typically, these interventions have no constitutional defense either. In Federalist 23 Hamilton wrote that, "The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." As far as we know Kuwait and Kosovo are not members of our union. We are not constitutionally obligated to defend them.

Mike Baker: So what should the response of the Church in America be? Our specific orders are, "... Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) Is American intervention wrong in every case, even though we are not constitutionally obligated?

Tom Pardue: The nature of the cultural institutions God has ordained is jurisdictional. Families, civil governments, churches, etc., govern within defined boundaries. None are permitted intervention in the jurisdictional sphere of the other, that is, civil government does not discipline church members for infractions of church rules, churches do not bear the sword against infractions of civil law and the covenant heads of families do not administer the sacraments, etc. We find no sanction in either Old or New Testaments for civil magistrates to cross into international jurisdictions to administer justice. We see an example of a civil magistrate entering an international jurisdiction in the case of Abram rescuing Lot, c.f. Gen. 14:14ff; the Israelites rescuing the Gibeonites with whom they had a covenantal relationship, c.f. Josh. 9:3ff, 10:6ff. We see Israel crossing tribal borders to bring criminals to justice, c.f. Judges 20:7ff. It is proper to logically deduce from the example of Scripture that international offensive military operations are appropriate only in a very narrow sense, to rescue filial and covenantal relations and to affect justice for citizens entrusted to the care of a civil magistrate. To make a contemporary application, it is proper for the US to conduct offensive military operations across international borders to rescue hostages and bring alleged criminals to justice. Offensive action against the jurisdiction protecting the alleged criminals is just as in the example of Israel above.

It is important to note that Israelite offensive military action against the nations in Canaan is not normative. Godís command to the Israelites to exterminate these nations was a judicial death sentence restricted to a specific time for specific offenses. God commanded the Israelites to conduct offensive military operations to punish the Canaanite nations, c.f. Gen. 15:16ff; Lev. 18:24ff.

God has commanded civil magistrates to defend the oppressed, c.f. Ps. 82:3. The context of Psalm 82 is one of civil magistrates defending those they have been tasked to judge, not those assigned to another jurisdiction, c.f. Ps. 82:2.

One may also properly apply the principle of self-defense to narrow situations. For instance, if a foreign military force is deployed for the aforementioned valid reasons, the force may come to the aid of the oppressed to prevent the unlawful shedding of blood. PRO 24:11 "Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold them back." This is in reality a valid application of the sixth commandment applied in the sense expressed in the Westminster Larger Catechism, "where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded," c.f. Eph. 4:27. The sixth commandment in this situation would be "Thou shall not allow another to be murdered."

It is interesting that Roman Catholic doctrine disagrees with this conclusion. The interventionist Romanist doctrine concludes that "in the case of a state's wholesale persecution of the innocent with death or unjust enslavement, a foreign power taking up their cause may fairly be said reasonably to assume the call of these and to make use of their right of resistance." The problem with this doctrine is its basis in rationalism, specifically the nebulous doctrines of "natural law." The expositor presented not one biblical proof text to support his conclusion.

The Great Commission contrasts sharply with Roman Catholic doctrine. It commissions an International Ministry of Grace, not a foreign power, to deliver the oppressed. Scripture proves the international nature of the Ministry of Grace, c.f. GAL 4:26. Paul, speaking to Gentiles, revealed to them their citizenship in the international church. The Ministry of Grace is an offensive weapon: MAT 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." The figure presented by Christ is of the church assaulting gates, Satanís feeble defense. The Ministry of Grace is the interventionist, the internationalist, and offensive weapon that God has given to men. The Ministry of Grace has not only the sanction but, the command to cross international borders to bring her citizens in.

God has granted this international commission exclusively to the church. It cannot be shown anywhere in Scripture that God has commissioned any civil magistrate to conduct such a mission, rationalist Romanistí claims notwithstanding. The problem facing the Roman institution is that she has not delivered the oppressed by her false gospel, but has facilitated the enslavement of many of her victims. Naturally she seeks to promote the physical liberation of her subjects by the power of the sword belonging someone else.

We do have an evangelical example from the Old Testament to authenticate the international nature of the Gospel. Jonah was sent to Nineveh to preach the Gospel. The assertion that the king of Nineveh was a "wholesale [persecutor] of the innocent with death or unjust enslavement" is without valid rebuttal. Christ described the Gentile kings as such, "And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'" LUK 22:25 God did not send the Israelite army to liberate the oppressed by offensive action. He sent Jonah to liberate them with the truth.

Mike Baker: Islam is receiving a lot of press right now, most from Islamic apologists and liberals who chant the ever familiar mantra of "tolerance" for all "faiths." Yet their transparency in stark light of the truth, like Islamic militants bombing and killing Christians in Sudan, is downright lunacy. What and where was the beginning of Islam, and what conclusions have you come to concerning Islam?

Tom Pardue: The term that you used previously, "militant Islamicism," is a mischaracterization and tautological. The true character of Islam is militancy and expansion through war. While there are some Qurían verses that speak of peace, there are 120+ verses that speak of fighting and war. Many Islamic scholars testify that all of the peaceful verses are abrogated under the abrogation doctrine expressed in Surah 2:106 which says "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." The acts of the Muslims prior to the Crusades validate this.

In his book "The Blood of the Moon" (1991) Reformed scholar Dr. George Grant reported that "Islamic Fundamentalism [is] really nothing more than a return to historic and orthodox Koranic Islam." The "Islamic Fundamentalists;" the "militant Islamicists" are just acting the way the Qurían tells them to act. The Muslim people who do not support and engage in terrorism are not acting consistent with their doctrine. Thank God indeed that He has blessed us by causing this inconsistency.

The message of the Qurían has been diluted by the secular intellectual elites , the Islamic community and many in Christendom who just "want to live in peace" and do not approve of the Quríanís literal testimony. We even see the pope join in the deception in regards to Islam. "The Times" reported "The Pope himself said that while the Roman Catholic Church admired Ďauthentic Islamí it rejected fanatics and terrorists driven by hate Ďwho profane the name of God and disfigure the true image of man.í" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001330017-2001332857,00.html

The name of "Christian Fundamentalist" carries the same stigma of "Islamic Fundamentalist." The Islamic Fundamentalists get an unfavorable reputation because they interpret the Qurían literally, just as Christian conservatives interpret the Bible. This is quite similar to the phenomena that has occurred in Christendom. The intellectualists tell us how to think, that is, they interpret the Bible as they wish instead of allowing the Bible to interpret itself. Thus, we have intellectualists who testify that Christ was not God, that women can be preachers, that sodomites can be preachers of the Gospel and valid communicants of churches, etc. To them truth is culturally determined instead of eternal. The Qurían is not true, but liberal Muslims have put a face on it that is consistent in many ways with contemporary cultural norms. Hence, we have the characterization that Islam is a religion of peace.

Mike Baker: What should be; what should have been, the Churchís response to this rising threat?

Tom Pardue: Iíll make a short answer long, but perhaps meaningful. Our friend, Dr. John Robbins, president of the Trinity Foundation, observed "America got into this situation through her unbelief of the truth. American churches are apostate. Not one church in fifty preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and not one church in one hundred preaches the whole counsel of God. . . What will avert this national calamity? Only one thing: An acknowledgment of our sin and a turning to the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation and forgiveness."

Instead of singing the "Star Spangled Banner," the apostate Unitarian "Battle Hymn of the Republic," encouraging flag worship and national idolatry, the churches should have repented. If judgment begins in the household of faith, so should repentance. The churches should have been the first to repent, then call on the President to cease the braggadocio and repent of his idolatry. He is Godís chief minister of justice. He sets the example. The example he has set is not one of humility, but one of idolatrous pride. JAM 4:6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." This does not mean that Bush should not seek to bring the terrorists to justice. He should do it with vigor as a chief civil magistrate in submission to Christ. Because it is men made in the image of God who were murdered it is God for who Bush wields the sword as His avenger.

We are an idolatrous nation. Our idols are varied, subtle; perhaps infinite. We are not overtly bowing to them, except in the case of Roman Catholics. Our lord is something, anything other than the God of the Bible. We place everything above Him. We look to our idols for protection, sustenance, peace, salvation. We are like the Chaldeans who offered sacrifices to their fishing nets, c.f. Hab 1:16.

We are truly antinomian, against the law/word of God. Again, we are like the Chaldeans whose "justice and authority originate with themselves," c.f. Hab. 1:7. Then, showing our great national idolatry and pride, we are just like them who because they were the source of their law revealed their god, their strength, c.f. Hab. 1:11.

God has testified "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance." PSA 33:12 Contrary to the ubiquitous invocation from TV, radio, media, signs, plaques, national figures, politicians and celebrities God is not going to bless America. No entreaty is heard by Him from we who are deep in sin with no inclination to repent, much less acknowledge our offenses against God.

We have tough times ahead. The anti-terrorism coalition is predictably showing signs of strain. It is destined for failure and cannot be reformed. The only hope for America is "that old time religion." Samuel Davies was an 18th century Virginia Presbyterian preacher largely responsible for teaching that great patriot Patrick Henry. Davies observed that men "are estranged from God, and engaged in rebellion against Him; and love to continue so. They will not submit, nor return to their duty and allegiance. Hence, there is need of a superior power to subdue their stubborn hearts . . . And for this purpose, the holy Spirit of God is sent into the world. . ."

We must pray with great fervor that, to paraphrase Davies, God will rend the heavens, quake the mountains and come down and reform His church. America desperately needs a revival of the Christian faith. I speak not in human terms of revival where the local church sets up a tent and proclaims a revival, but where in various seasons God sends down His Spirit. Revival is not contingent upon the actions of man, that is, God does not send His Spirit to reform the church in response to men fulfilling certain mechanical criteria. God sends reformation and revival on His terms alone. We must assume that as He has promised to hear prayers of the faithful and answer them that He will respond to prayer. JAM 5:16 ". . . The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

There is no checklist of things men do or to match a template God lays on the culture which causes Him to react and grant revival. God acts as He wishes. He is completely sovereign. However, Ian Murray notes that "the Holy Spirit has appointed means to be used for the advancement of the gospel, pre-eminently the teaching of the Word of God accompanied by earnest prayer. " This is his observation from studying periods of revival from American and British history. It should be intuitively obvious that God has never and is not now going to pour out His Spirit on an apostate church.

We have our marching orders. We must pray earnestly and ensure that our preachers are teaching the gospel. Our goal is not to obtain the blessing of America with salvation. Our goal is to honor God in the process of our discipling of the nations. If God sovereignly chooses to save America, so be it. If not He has promised to bless and protect His people. With this in mind our goal is faithfulness, obedience to God and nothing else.

Mike Baker: Mr. Pardue, on behalf of the Church in America, thanks for your time on this. I pray that in the months ahead, this might be another brick in the wall, not only in the rebuilding of the American nationís national security, but the Churchís influence in national and foreign policy issues.

Tom Pardue: Mike, I thank you for this opportunity to bear witness to the truth.





The American Flag

"Instead of praying for just a few more republicans in Congress or a republican President to bring about salvation by laws, Christians should be praying that God will send revival. Only He can save us. So saith the Scripture." ~ Tom Pardue Sr. LtCol. U.S. ARMY (retired)

America At War

Salem The Soldier's Homepage America At War at Salem The Soldier's Homepage

America At War
              -
To return to the previous Page †To Return To Salem the Soldier's Homepage
AMERICA AT WAR site, Click On The 'S'

America At War

"War on America" © 2001 † Michael A. Baker
This material is copyrighted to prevent altering or reproducing for profit.
Any reproduction is expressly forbidden without prior approval from the author
and interviewed!

Lieutenant Colonel Tom Pardue Sr. US Army (Ret.), is
former Vice-president of Americans For Constitutional Integrity.