Radio Broadcast 31 July 2005, Talking Points
Series: Is Freedom Christian?

Broadcast – War is Biblical Part 2

CW – Before we begin the subject of our broadcast this
week, we want to update you about some things we have
talked about in the past.
Dr. Ford, you said you did not expect President Bush
to make a good nomination for the Supreme Court. Now
that the nominee is Roberts what is your opinion? 

Ford – Well, I have not climbed on Senator “Sour
grapes” Schumer and “Chappaquiddik” Kennedy’s
bandwagon of opposition. But you will not find me
singing any of the many petitions going around on Mr.
Robert’s behalf either. He is a stealth candidate,
much as Souter, nominated by Bush senior was. We do
not know anything for sure about him. Some have
pointed to his wife’s pro-bono anti-abortion work to
either launch a resistance to his nomination or to try
to assure us we should support him. I need to only
point out people tried to mislead us about Al Gore
based on his wife’s book and activism on issues like
evil music. It turned out Gore did not share his
wife’s values, and if you have watched her performance
since, we can not even be sure she held the beliefs
she claimed to hold back then. I am saying that you
cannot be sure of anything concerning Roberts, and I
am not going to be promoting him. Besides it worries
me that Hillary Clinton is for him.

CW – So you have what could be called a basically wait
and see attitude toward the Supreme Court nominee. Do
you have any more observations on this process you
would care to share?

Ford – Yes. The whole process is an exercise for a
number of reasons. People like to accuse Christians of
being hypocrites when they do not perform as they
profess. One of the things we do not see out of these
Senators is equal performance in all cases. Senator
Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York, has gone on
record saying he would question John Roberts about his
views on abortion and a host of other issues. But when
ACLU shill, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the nominee of
President Clinton, responded to questions saying it
would be inappropriate for her to give an opinion on
questions that might come before the Supreme Court
that was okay. Her refusal to answer questions,
concerning such things as abortion, became known as
“the Ginsburg standard.” It seems that is applicable
to only liberal democratic candidates, who are known
to believe they can make the Constitution say anything
they want and not to people who might be “strict
constructionists.”
CW – Now what do you mean by a strict constructionist?

Ford – That is a person who believes the Constitution
means exactly what it says and that things should not
be read into it that are not there. When people say
they believe the Constitution is a living document
they are saying they believe that the Constitution can
be altered or changed by the court because they can
choose to make it mean anything they want it to. We
have relied on the Republicans to bring sanity back to
the court. Our theory has been that by electing
republican candidates freedom would be preserved, but
so far that has been a fruitless hope. 

CW – There is a saying that there is nothing like a
little experience to upset a theory. What can you do?

Ford – Right now people in this country are caught
between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There is
a serious need for Christians to be busy praying for
this country because if you vote democrats in you go
into the New World Order with great suffering, and if
you vote in republicans you go into the New World
Order bit by bit. But either way, you are headed down
the devil’s road of destruction.

CW – Now I have some information on an outrageous
local government’s abuse of a citizen.,,Robert
Schultz, 80 year old WWII veteran jailed for open
containment. Local government officials puts man who
is unable physically to keep his yard and financially
impoverished in jail for not cleaning up his yard. You
would think they would help him instead of punishing
him.

Ford – One of the things I see all the time is that
local governments are making rules about other
people’s property. What we need is less intrusion into
the way people conduct their business on their own
property.

CW – We need to press forward to discussing the
subject of war.
In our previous broadcast you made four points:
1. God is not opposed to war when it suits His
purpose.
2. God is the commander of armies of His own.
3. There are principles on which the going to war is
based or justified.
4. The wars of men can serve God’s eternal purposes.
You also said you believed that the United States had
been in wars within the will of God, such as World
Wars I and II, but you left the door open to question
whether you believed all the wars America had been in
was God’s will.

Ford – That’s right. America is now in its fourth
World War. Each one of which has flowed out of the war
that went before it.

CW – When was World War 3 and what is World War 4?



Ford – Each world war has a name. World War III was
called the Cold War. It was a global war that has been
fought clandestinely around the world as enemies spied
on enemies and friends spied on friends as well. World
War III has not really ended, it has changed in
principal players and flowed into World War IV, the
war on terrorism. In WW4, Russia again seeks to become
a player on the world’s stage. This is something they
are succeeding at.

CW – I know you have written articles on the Russian
threat and that they correspond to an invader of
Israel spoken of in Bible prophecy.
How does it all fit together?

Ford – Everything comes together to fulfill God’s
plan, even the things Russia is doing and is going to
do. God knew all that would happen before He laid the
foundations of Creation. And, He has set things in
motion so that it will fulfill His divine purposes.
Some people want to label this knowledge as a
fatalistic belief. But it is a hopeful certainty
because we know God always works for the highest
purpose and this always means that for those who
choose to follow Him, that accomplishes the greatest
good for men.

CW – During our last session you mentioned something
called the principles of war. What do you mean by
that?

Ford – There are actually a number of different sets
of principles of war. There are those that govern
conduct of nations in war as well as when they should
choose to go to war. There are principles that govern
the conduct of fighting men in general, and there are
some that specifically govern the conduct of the
professional soldier. Some of these are general. Some
are things that should be common to all nations and
then there are some that are specific. For instance
there are principles that should be applied to whether
America should go to war or not that are different
from those that would affect other nations.

CW – Give me those American principles for going to
war.

Ford – I am not sure I know them all. But let me give
you some I do know.
1. The American people are highly individualistic, and
skeptical of war’s benefits. They are traditionally
distrustful of government and wary of need to
sacrifice for any sort of global agenda. Americans
must always see their country as going to war
reluctantly.
2. Our support for war hinges first of all on it being
waged for idealistic principles, “such as a war to end
all wars.” Americans like their wars to also be short
and filled with optimism. From the Civil War to
Vietnam long wars have provoked protest and often lead
to popular disdain for the people in government.
3. The hypercritical media elite, who impact the
attitude of the nation are more likely to be
supportive of a war lead by someone who is progressive
or liberal, like a Woodrow Wilson or Clinton. They can
more easily promote themselves as being forced to
fight by circumstances because their liberal natures
are supposed to abhor war. 
4. The United States seems to be more united against
right wing fascism than left wing totalitarianism.
This is where the government has stumbled in its
promotion of the war against terrorism. They have not
identified to the people the fascist nature of the
Islamic threat because of political correctness, and
they have not given a representative dictatorial face
or faces to the enemy so people could hate or despise
it. 
5. Above all war must be seen as a righteous act. We
must always see ourselves as the good guys with a good
or noble objective in view that will secure benefits,
such as peace and security, for our families and even
our children’s children 
6. It is very good for war to not only have some
marginal support from the elites in academia,
journalism, and politics, but from the pulpits as
well. The corruption of all four of these areas has
made it very difficult to launch, sustain, and
successfully conclude any war.

CW – According to what you said about the principles
of war, then Clinton taking America into Bosnia was a
good war.

Ford – No, Clinton taking us into Bosnia was an action
that generated little criticism because of the
principles I have enumerated. It was accepted even
though it served a “global agenda,” not an American
one, because of who took us into it. Actually it
intruded us into a situation we should have stayed out
of. We went into Bosnia on the side of a people who
had been persecuting the Christian faction for
generations and had seen circumstances shift the
balance of power. What was happening to them was the
fruits of evil they had sowed over many years. Some of
my sources claim that we got into that because of the
influence of the Pope. You see, the Muslims we rescued
were once Catholics who converted to Islam under
threat of the sword. The Christian Serbs who did not
convert were not Catholics. The Roman Pope never
forgave them for not giving in to the Arab invasion
when his own people did. We were not, are not there
for any good purpose. But Clinton gets a pass because
of who and what he is in spite of the facts of the
situation.

CW – What you are saying is unsettling to some people
I am sure. Were you still on active duty when the
decision to go into Bosnia was made, what would you
have done?

Ford – Some people who were on active duty chose to
face courts martial rather than going along with the
folly. Had I been still on active duty, I would have
gone in and followed orders. The reason is because
there is another code or set of principles the
American fighting man must follow or the whole system
of defense falls apart, beginning with the oath where
a man promises to follow the orders of those appointed
over him.

CW – I see. You obey the order, even though you do not
agree with it.

Ford – Yes, because it is a lawful order, not because
the cause is just.
I would need to be faithful to my oath of service in
order to preserve the institution of defense in order
to safeguard the nation
Going ahead falls under articles 1 & 6 of the American
Fighting man’s code of conduct.

CW – Give the listeners that code of conduct.

Ford - The Code of Conduct
I. I am an American fighting man. I serve in the
forces which guard my country and our way of life. I
am prepared to give my life in their defense 
II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in
command I will never surrender my men while they still
have the means to resist.
III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all
means available. I will make every effort to escape
and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole
nor special favors from the enemy. 
IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith
with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information
or take part in any action which might be harmful to
my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If
not I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed
over me and will back them up in every way. 
V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war,
I am required to give name, rank, service number, and
date of birth. 
I will evade answering further questions to the utmost
of my ability. 
I will make no written statements disloyal to my
country and its allies or harmful to their cause. 
VI. I will never forget that I am an American fighting
man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the
principles which made my country free.
I will trust in my God and in the United States of
America.

CW – I notice that trust in God is an integral part of
the code.

Ford – As it was in the principles that govern going
to war.
Unlike a nation like Germany, Iraq, Iran, or even
Russia, we do not go to war as an affair of honor,
ego, or gain. Americans will not go to war for some
economic gain. We willingly go to war as a matter of
self-defense, and we might engage in a limited action
in order to help someone else, such as when we went
into Bosnia and the Sudan. 
You take a war like the Mexican War, where we actually
occupied Mexico City, there is very little said about
that war, even though we were attacked first. Why” 

CW -  You tell me.

Ford - Probably because of the settlement of the war
resulted in an increase of territory for the U.S.
Overlooked is the fact that even before hostilities
had broken out we were willing to purchase the same
land we later acquired as a postwar settlement. For
some reason territorial gains as a result of war are
embarrassing to Americans. We have tried to impose our
land guilt upon Israel in recent years. I think that
is absolutely foolish.
	In the Mexican War, there was a strong feeling of
Manifest Destiny on the part of many Americans
however. In other words, we believed that God wanted
America to grow with the annexation of places like
Texas and California. But we do not like to gain
territory through war.
	I am sure you have noticed that some who oppose the
current war in Iraq have accused the government of
wanting territory in the Middle East and middle
eastern oil. It feeds into and reflects an
understanding of the American emotional opposition
against fighting wars for territory.

CW – Yes I have. Do you consider the war on terrorism
a just war?

Ford – Absolutely! We have been attacked by people who
have made the ideals of America the issue, including
the True God, who is identified with what has made
America great. Ronald Reagan said:
“There is a temptation to see the terrorist act as
simply the erratic work of a small group of fanatics.
We make this mistake at great peril, for the attacks
on America, her citizens, her allies, and other
democratic nations in recent years do form a pattern
of terrorism that has strategic implications and
political goals. And only by moving our focus from the
tactical to the strategic perspective, only by
identifying the pattern of terror and those behind it,
can we ever hope to put into force a strategy to deal
with it.

CW – Since they have made it a war between their god
and our God, shouldn’t we expect Almighty God to be on
our side?

Ford – Not necessarily. The problem with being a
people identified as a Christian nation, who belong to
the True God, is that God expects us to live like we
are that people. Israel did not go into captivity
because they were no longer God’s Chosen People. They
went into captivity because a righteous God must first
make judgment begin at His own house before He visits
judgment on others. In other words, the cup of their
iniquity became full and God had to deal with it. I
might also remind you that Israel at its worst was
still far better than the people who took them into
captivity.

CW – So you say America could lose the War on
Terrorism?

Ford – Yes, and it is a bit paradoxical in several
respects. 
Take Muslims for instance: Millions in the Islamic
world are watching the West struggle against Islamic
fascism. Deep down inside many would prefer,
logically, to live under Western-style freedom and
democratic auspices. Yet nationalism, pride, religion,
tribal culture, and ethnic solidarity war with their
power to reason. These things combine to produce a
greater resentment against America than fear of what
would be their fate should these fascists gain their
goals. They embrace the fascists even with evidence
from Afghanistan concerning what occurs where people
like the Taliban gain power. I have seen real longing
for freedom when I lived in Lybia and Turkey; but even
for those living in America, one out of four Moslems
according to statistics, will applaud terrorists even
when it means losing the very freedom Arabs for
decades have said they wanted. We not only have a
problem in the Middle East, we have a problem right
here in our own communities.
	But the biggest problem we have is with our
relationship with God.
If God be for us, no power in this world could triumph
against us. But because of the sins of the Nation we
could lose the war. There is no guarantee God will be
for us.
	The next thing is related to the first two. The
religion of Islam is not a religion that produces
freedom. As a false religion it produces slavery to a
demonic entity for its practitioners. To receive true
freedom the Muslim needs to receive the Lord Jesus
Christ as his Savior. The problem is, because of the
compromise of Christians, their failure to live like
Christians, and the actions of liberal theologians who
pretend to speak for Christianity, we fail most of the
time to produce a witness for Christ that makes very
many want what we have got real Christians have got.
And, the freedom that exists in America is here
because it grew out of Christian principles.
 CW concluding remarks…