Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status

The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.

A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.

But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.

When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.

Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.

Ron Paul Letter From a Soldier

I joined the Army in the early months of 2001; my patriotism led me to the recruiter’s office. I had grown up in awe of my grandfathers and their stories of World War II, and their reminiscing became my dreams. When I got to basic training I did not talk about missing home like the other recruits around me, I felt at home in ways I never had before.

The weeks after 9/11 found me in Kosovo, part of C co 3/7 Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division, patrolling the border with Macedonia as part of our duties. We had ammunition to defend ourselves with and the authority to apprehend anyone crossing the border illegally. I will get back to why these details are important later.

Fast forward to 2003, I am rolling across the desert in the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle, part of the spearhead into Iraq. Other than those first three weeks of “Shock and Awe” what I remember most about Iraq was the people. Crowds of kids wanting to know about Michael Jackson and Britney Spears, open-minded adults wanted to know about our social freedoms, and ninety some percent of Iraqis just wanted to raise their families in peace and did not hesitate to tell us. I really fell in love with the Iraqi people. My platoon and I played soccer with some of those crowds of kids, we had dinner and shared food with families in their homes, we even went to a few house parties, and my lieutenant and I spent one very memorable afternoon swimming in an irrigation ditch with five young women. It is all of them I think of when anyone tells me we need to turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass or that all Muslims are our enemies.

I remember thinking on this briefly when I was there, but more so since I’ve returned, usually when I’m day dreaming behind the wheel of my van, but what we were doing when we were doing our jobs, patrolling the streets, conducting road blocks, vehicle searches, bodily searching individuals, and searching houses, couldn’t be helping our long range plans for winning hearts and minds. I really have to wonder, how long would it take me to move from a position of thanks for my despotic government being removed, to feeling like I lived in a conquered and occupied country if I saw foreign troops on the streets of my hometown Tallahassee everyday? Add to this our having bases and troops in Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, ( I may have missed a few, we have approximately 700 bases in 130 countries ) some of them for decades, our Navy of their coast, our fighter jets in their sky’s , the CIA in business with monarchs, dictators and thugs, and our State Department treating their leaders like irresponsible children, it’s no wonder moderate Muslims takes to the streets shouting “ Death to America” and a minority takes action against us. I would expect we would be doing the same thing if say, China had bases on our soil, and her Navy patrolled our coastline and Chinese fighter jets streaked across our sky. In short, this is all hard to admit, but our actions do have consequences.

Fast forward again to the present day, I am out of active duty, and in the Army Reserves. (I wanted to stay active duty, but my wife said I would be single, so we had a compromise.) To be honest the reserves has bored me to tears and I haven’t felt like I’m giving anything back to my country, so I looked into getting attached to a National Guard unit on our border with Mexico for a tour or two. However, when I learned they don’t have the authority to apprehend illegal border crossers and can only call up our overworked and over-stretched border patrol when they spot illegal activity, I got myself in trouble again by thinking - about what I had done in Kosovo and about what I knew our military had done to our own people in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina (disarmed law abiding civilians only trying to protect themselves when the police had failed to do so).

To add insult to injury, our Guardsmen and women on our own border don’t have ammunition and have on several documented occasions actually had to retreat when facing fire from Mexican paramilitary groups. Now why would I want to sign up for that? To be witness to the violation of America’s sovereignty? No one in the Executive branch of our government is doing anything about it, and it makes me wonder why I am even in the Army at all.

Why are we the world's policeman when our own country is being openly violated? Why are we borrowing money hand over fist from nations not exactly our friends, just to spend it on our out-of-control foreign policy? I am starting to feel like the powers that be do not have America’s interests in mind at all. It’s starting to feel like our ruin is their objective. From our factories closing and moving overseas, to the plunging value of our dollar, America is crumbling. Yet I love her far to much to watch her fall apart.

This is why I am taking my personal revolution and joining forces with Dr. Ron Paul’s revolution. His “bring all the troops home” non-intervention foreign policy and plans to put America first again are just what we need at this time in our history. I don’t expect you to agree with everything he says, but I do hope we can all put our differences aside and join him in seeing that ALL the troops come home, the Republic is restored and America saved.

Thank you and God Bless.
Zakery Carter

exclusivelyamericanmade@yahoo.com
read this, share it, spread it around.

An Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul

by Laurence M. Vance

Member of Congress and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is the premier advocate for political and religious liberty in politics today. He is the most pro-life, pro-family, pro-property, pro-Constitution politician in history. If it is possible to be more Jeffersonian than Jefferson, then Ron Paul is the man.

On issues that are dear to the vast majority of Protestant Christians, Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above the other candidates. Consider just a few.

The Issues

Abortion: Ron Paul is a physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He not only opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and partial-birth abortion, he is against abortion itself. As he himself has said:

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Religion: Ron Paul has issued a statement of his personal faith that should satisfy Protestant Christians of any persuasion:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

The reason we do not find very many references to religion in his writings and speeches is because, unlike President Bush, Dr. Paul does not cloak his political proposals with religious rhetoric in hopes of beguiling Christians.

Family values: Ron Paul lives his family values. Unlike Christian "leaders" like prophecy guru Hal Lindsey, who is on his fourth wife, and adulterous Republican politicians like the thrice-married Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years, and has five children and seventeen grandchildren. He also opposes same-sex marriage, and has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

Gun control: Ron Paul is the gun owners’ best friend. Not only has he consistently opposed the expansion of federal gun control laws, he has introduced in Congress the Second Amendment Protection Act to repeal unconstitutional federal laws that allow bureaucrats to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Dr. Paul opposes waiting periods, instant background checks, and government databases of gun owners.

Illegal immigration: Ron Paul is opposed to "open borders." He believes that the U.S. government should fight terrorism by first securing its own borders. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. But Dr. Paul is not anti-immigrant in any sense of the word. He believes that the immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. He joins the vast majority of Americans who welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English.

American Sovereignty: Ron Paul is against any form of a world government or a new world order. Because he believes that the United Nations is a corrupt organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government, he has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul likewise opposes the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SSP), the NAFTA Super Highway, and any form of a North American Union. He believes that these plans are the result of an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and government officials. Rather than resulting from the demands of the free market, they are an extension of government-managed trade schemes that benefit politically-connected interests. Dr. Paul also opposes foreign aid since it is generally nothing more than U.S. taxpayer dollars given away to corrupt foreign governments.

The Questions

So what gives? Why aren’t Protestant Christians lining up in droves behind Ron Paul?

It turns out that because Ron Paul opposes constitutional amendments banning abortion, same-sex marriage, and flag burning, some Protestants have been led to believe that he is not a real Republican. Some Christians think it inconsistent that Dr. Paul can oppose abortion but also oppose a constitutional amendment banning abortion, oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and oppose flag burning but also oppose a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning.

Because Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian and opposes the war on drugs, foreign aid to Israel, and the war in Iraq, other Protestants have come to the conclusion that he is not a genuine conservative. They assert:

• Ron Paul is a libertarian so he must be a libertine, or at least an advocate of alternative lifestyles.
• Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs so he must support drug use.
• Ron Paul opposes giving foreign aid to Israel so he must be either pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic.
• Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war so he must not support the troops.

These are false assertions.

The Answers

But if anyone is a real Republican and a genuine conservative it is Ron Paul. He has been elected to Congress ten times as a Republican. He is the former honorary chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on the conservative New American magazine’s "Freedom Index."

Unlike many in Congress who call themselves Republicans or conservatives, Ron Paul actually believes in strictly following the Constitution. Representative Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution – even if it means courageously casting the lone "no" vote. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. He has actively promoted the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. He is recognized as the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has also received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.

It is because Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution that he opposes the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance programs, warrantless searches, restrictions on freedom of speech, national ID cards, federal information databases, and what he calls the Homeland Security monstrosity. His congressional website lists "The Ron Paul Freedom Principles":

• Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
• Property should be owned by people, not government.
• All voluntary associations should be permissible – economic and social.
• The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
• Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
• The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s.

Ron Paul believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because abortion is simply not a constitutional issue. He doesn’t think there is any serious argument based on the text of the Constitution that there exists a federal "right to abortion." He maintains that the federalization of abortion law is not based on constitutional principles, but on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Since the federal government has no authority to involve itself in the abortion issue, a federal law banning abortion in the states would be just as wrong as Roe v. Wade.

Ron Paul believes that marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. He does not think social problems can be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Taken to its logical conclusion, the turning of regulation of domestic family relations over to the federal government means that presumably anything can be federalized. Because the federal government has only been granted limited, enumerated powers by the Constitution, Dr. Paul maintains that it has no role whatsoever regarding marriage law. Although the states should enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, they too should otherwise stay out of the marriage business. It should also be pointed out that Representative Paul was a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, which would have removed challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act (PL 104-99) was passed to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if the said marriage occurred in another state. Although Dr. Paul was not in Congress at the time the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, he has stated that he would have voted for it.

Like all patriotic Americans, Ron Paul despises flag burning. He believes that the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech that the majority considers to be offensive. Because he believes that freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property, Dr. Paul considers making flag burning a federal crime to be an attack on private property. However, he does support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning.

Ron Paul is against constitutional amendments banning abortion, same-sex marriage, and flag burning precisely because he is following the Constitution he swore allegiance to. Another reason he opposes these amendments is because he is an advocate of that forgotten constitutional principle of federalism. He considers the division of power between the federal government and the states to be one of the virtues of the American political system. To alter this balance would endanger self-government and individual liberty. Dr. Paul is in favor of letting state legislatures decide social policy because federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making. Following the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, he favors all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remaining with state legislatures.

Although some Protestant Christians think that because Ron Paul holds to many libertarian ideals that he is also a libertine, nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of libertarianism is that it is wrong to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property. Force is justified only in self-defense. Libertarianism, as explained by Murray Rothbard, the twentieth century’s greatest proponent of it, is a political philosophy that

holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.

Libertinism is a way of life that might be considered hedonistic or sympathetic to "alternative lifestyles." A libertine might be a libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, a socialist, a progressive, or an anarchist. He might be a member of the Libertarian Party, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, some lesser-known third party, or no political party. One does not have to be a Christian to oppose libertinism, as Walter Block has superbly shown. Conservative Republicans are not immune from libertine behavior, as we can see from the recent scandals in Congress.

Other Christians falsely believe that since Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs that he supports drug use. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows firsthand the harmful effects of mind-altering narcotics. He believes that drug addiction is a social problem, not a crime. He has pointed out that for the first 140 years of our country’s history we had no federal drug war yet far fewer problems with drug addiction and crime. Dr. Paul opposes the drug war because it encourages violence, has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation, has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money, has been used as an excuse to attack our civil liberties and personal privacy, has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy, has promoted illegal searches and seizures resulting in innocent people losing their lives and property, criminalizes the actions of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs, threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain, and corrupts our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system.

Some Protestants who consider themselves evangelicals have wrongly concluded that since Ron Paul opposes giving foreign aid to Israel he is pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic. Congressman Paul is opposed to giving foreign aid to Israel for the simple reason that he opposes giving foreign aid to any country. Foreign aid is, after all, money that has been taken from American taxpayers – money that most of them would not voluntarily send overseas if they had a choice. Any individual American who desires to assist someone in another country is perfectly free to do so. Dr. Paul’s perspective is that of the Founding Fathers: America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. He believes that our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife, conflict, and violence. Both sides have more military weapons as a result of our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid. Some of our foreign aid even winds up in the hands of terrorists. For more on Ron Paul and the question of foreign aid to Israel, see Walter Block’s "An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul."

Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war precisely because he supports the troops. He is a patriot in every sense of the word. He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance. And unlike many in the Bush administration who avoided military service, he served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. Because Dr. Paul loves this country and all of its people, he is opposed to endangering the life of U.S. soldiers in unnecessary foreign wars that only enrich federal contractors. He is therefore pro-life in an absolute sense. He believes that the best way we can support the troops is to bring them home, not just from Iraq, but from all of the countries in which the United States has troops stationed. Then Americans can proudly serve in the military knowing that they are engaged in real national defense.

It is conservative Republicans who support pre-emptive war, bloated defense and intelligence budgets, secret military tribunals, torture of "enemy combatants," extraordinary renditions, an increasingly militarized society, the violation of basic civil liberties, undue government secrecy, and domestic spying programs who are neither real nor genuine.

The Answer

Protestant Christians who love liberty, respect the Constitution, and believe in the freedom to live their live and practice their religion without the heavy hand of government hanging over their heads should be drawn to Ron Paul like a magnet.

As a Baptist myself, I realize that some Baptists don’t consider themselves Protestants. In this article I am using the term Protestant in its broadest sense. Therefore, this open letter is addressed to them as well. But religion or no religion, if your creed is liberty, then Ron Paul is the man.

November 14, 2007

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest publication is War, Foreign Policy, and the Church. Visit his website.

An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul

by Walter Block

Ron Paul favors the elimination of foreign aid to Israel. Many Jews, even those who favor free enterprise, individual rights and peace, thus oppose the most libertarian candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination for president. This enmity goes so far as to account for his being barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s candidates' forum. This is no doubt that this action was taken out of fear that if Congressman Paul’s policies are put into effect, they will be harmful to Israel.

At first blush, this seems reasonable enough. The U.S. gives lots of money to the Israeli government for use by its military, and if this were totally eliminated, it is not unwarranted to think that this country would thereby be weakened.

However, I contend that there are several good and sufficient reasons to doubt this popular belief. Consider the following.

I. Relative statistics

Dr. Paul by no means would single out the single country of Israel for an elimination of foreign aid. Much to the contrary, his is a thorough-going plan that would end this pernicious program for all countries. Indeed, each and every nation on the face of the earth that had been receiving U.S. tax dollars would be told that their ride on this particular gravy train had ended. Would this hurt Israel? Of course, at least in dollar terms (see below for the argument that foreign aid actually hurts the economies of the recipient countries). But, it would also harm every other recipient as well (I am still positing, arguendo, that foreign "aid" benefits recipient countries). In order to determine whether or not Israel would be better off or not, one must make a relativistic judgment. That is, will Israel lose more or less than its enemies?

The facts for a recent year appear below. Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:

1. Israel 2.58 Billion

2. Egypt 1.84 Billion

3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion

4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion

5. Colombia 0.57 Billion

6. Sudan 0.50 Billion

7. Jordan 0.48 Billion

8. Uganda 0.25 Billion

9. Kenya 0.24 Billion

10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion

11. South Africa 0.19 Billion

12. Peru 0.19 Billion

13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion

14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion

15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion

16. Zambia 0.18 Billion

Israel, as can be expected, is right at the top of this list. It would lose $2.58 Billion, under President Paul’s administration (I have to confess that I really like the sound of that phrase. I think I’ll repeat it: President Paul’s administration. Perhaps this sounds even better: President Ron Paul’s administration. Or maybe this: The Administration of President Ron Paul? Okay, okay, back to business, now.) However, let us add up the amounts received by only these few countries, all of them mainly populated by either Muslims and/or Arabs:

2. Egypt 1.84 Billion

3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion

4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion

6. Sudan 0.50 Billion

7. Jordan 0.48 Billion

If we do so, we arrive at the figure of $4.5 Billion. So, yes, Israel will lose $2.58 Billion, but its enemies, both actual and potential, are out of pocket a far larger $4.5 Billion. If we sum up the amounts received by all countries which harbor anti-Semites, we reach a much higher figure. If we define this broadly enough, this might well include just about every other nation on earth. No matter what statistics we consider, Israel is relatively strengthened by the Ron Paul policy on foreign aid. It loses, but its actual and potential enemies lose more. Thus, it becomes relatively stronger. Note, also, that these figures do not include the vast amounts currently spent by the U.S. on and in Iraq and Palestine, certainly no friends of Israel.

II. Private giving

There is nothing, nothing at all, in Ron Paul’s program that would even in the slightest interfere with private foreign charitable giving. In other words, Jews in the U.S., and non-Jewish American supporters of Israel, would be just as free as at present, to donate to this country. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that these private gifts to Israel would increase, not decrease. For one thing, with the slight (foreign aid comprises only in the neighborhood of 1% of GDP) reduction in taxes this would imply (in a Ron Paul administration, such savings would be funneled into lower taxation, not into other programs; did I mention that I really like the sound of that phrase, a Ron Paul administration?) more disposable income for all. Since Jews are in higher income brackets than the average person, and we presently suffer under a progressive income tax (which, by the way, would also be ended by President Paul) the largest donors to Israel would have even more income at their disposal. Then, too, this community might be so upset at this action of President Paul (I really like the way that phrase rolls off the tongue; ah, the sheer alliteration!), unwisely so, but still, so that they would donate additional monies.

III. Foreign aid weakens the economy

If we learn anything from Peter Bauer, it is that government-to-government transfers of income do not constitute foreign "aid." Very much to the contrary, they typically amount to foreign detriment. Much of the money goes to the three Ms: monuments, Mercedes and machine guns. The first need not be in the form of a statue of the leader: it could also take the form of a mill that produces steel at a multiple of the price available on world markets. The second includes not only automobiles, but also, invariably, engorged Swiss bank accounts. And the third is usually utilized by third-world dictators to keep the citizenry in thrall. Then, too, while foreign "aid" is a small part of the donor’s economy, it accounts for a large percentage of that of the recipients’. Instead of the best and brightest of their young people aiming at careers that can help economic development (doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs), they engage in training that will help them divert some of the boodle to themselves, and their relatives and friends (civil servants, lawyers, bureaucrats).

In Israel, the main negative implication of U.S. largesse has been promotion of socialism. Had our country not been financially supporting a heavily unionized and socialized economy in Israel, these policies would likely have never been as large as they were, and would have diminished much sooner. There are strong empirical illustrations attesting to the correlation between size of government and economic regulations, on the one hand, and attenuation of the economy on the other (Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975–1995, Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute. For a non-empirical treatment of this phenomenon, see Smith, Adam. [1776] 1979. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund).

That is, without U.S. "aid" to Israel, the economy of the latter would have been stronger. But a richer country is usually a safer country. One of the effects of Dr. Paul’s policy, then, would be the strengthening of the Israeli economy.

IV. The U.S. handcuffs Israeli policy

Because of its monetary transfers to Israel, the U.S. is in a position to dictate policy to its client state. Sometimes, perhaps, maybe, this is in the best interests of the nation of Israel. At least, it does not constitute a logical contradiction to entertain such a notion. But there are numerous cases where the U.S. has obviously handcuffed the Israelis, not to the benefit of the latter, at least as the Israelis saw their own best interest.

Perhaps the most famous example of this phenomenon is when Eisenhower forced the British, French and Israelis to pull back from their invasion of Suez in 1956.

According to one historian: "President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt." Forget about the rights and wrongs of the matter; they do not concern us. My point is that it is extremely difficult to interpret this little episode as being in the best interests of the security of the state of Israel, at least insofar as the leaders of that country saw their own best interests in this regard.

A more recent case in point took place when Condoleezza Rice forced the Israelis to postpone the bombing of a possible nuclear facility in Syria. This was done in the context when the Israelis certainly saw quick action as being in their national interest. According to a news report:

"A mysterious Israeli military strike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria last month was opposed by Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, because she feared it would destabilise the region, according to a report this weekend.

"Rice persuaded the Israelis to delay their operation…"

Say what you will about these two events, which are only the tip of a very large iceberg, it cannot be denied that they constitute a serious drawback to the safety of Israel, at least in terms of how the Israelis themselves see their own best interest. Needless to say, this sort of interference would come to a complete, abrupt and utter halt under a Ron Paul presidency.

V. Guarantor

Forget about the money, at least for a moment. The U.S. also provides Israel with a guarantee: any country trying to overrun Israel will have to deal with the armed might of the U.S. Iran, the member of the "evil axis" du jour, had better watch out.

But just how good are U.S. guarantees? As but one example you can ask the Vietnamese who supported the U.S. incursion into their country all about that.

Would an Israel completely untied to the apron strings of the U.S. be able to take care of itself? There seems little doubt that not only would Israel be able to defend itself, it would be more able to do so without the U.S. continually orchestrating matters in a paternalistic manner.

How about in the face of nuclear-armed Iran? An Israel able to operate on its own, without a by your leave from Uncle Sam, might be better able to prevent just such an occurrence. If not, that nation has its own nuclear weapons at its disposal. If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could endure decades of cold war, with only Mutual Assured Destruction keeping the "peace," it may well be that Israel and its Arab neighbors will have to go through the same process. At the very least, this present tossing of missiles from Gaza over to Israel would have to come to an end; it would be far too dangerous in a Middle Eastern MAD. Without the U.S. in the neighborhood, the major Muslim/Arab powers such as Iran/Egypt, Syria would never tolerate such risky acts.

Having given several reasons for doubting that Ron Paul’s program would harm Israel, let us move on to a conclusion.

Perhaps, if Ron wanted to help Israel vis-à-vis its enemies, it would end government to government transfers of income to that country, and double or triple it to every other nation, particularly to its most vociferous enemies. With the poison of foreign "aid" applied to its enemies, but not to Israel, the latter might become even the more strengthened relative to them. This is an interesting speculation. But this is not part of Ron Paul’s program. For one thing, there is nothing in the Constitution allowing, let alone requiring, such a policy. (Ron really ought to give a free copy of this document to his Republican debating partners.) For another, it is highly incompatible with libertarian prohibitions against stealing.

The action of the Republican Jewish Coalition in barring Ron Paul from their debate was thus a shonda for the goyim. A disgrace. We Jews are supposed to be the people of the book. That is, open to intellectual dialogue. How is it possible to reconcile this with a refusal to hear out one of the major Republican candidates for the presidency. I urge all Jewish Republicans and libertarians to express their dissatisfaction with this act, and to join Jews for Ron Paul.

Note the narrow scope of this article. I am not engaged in any discussion of shoulds or oughts. I take no position, whatsoever, on whether Eisenhower was justified in forcing an end to the Suez crisis, nor whether Condoleezza Rice was justified in postponing the more recent Israeli bombing of (possible) Syrian nuclear installations. I am addressing myself solely to the narrow question of whether Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate all foreign aid will likely help or hurt Israel. The mainstream Jewish community fervently believes the latter. And this to such a degree that they have acted disgracefully by barring Dr. Paul from their debate. With leaders like that, the Jewish community in the U.S. hardly needs enemies.

November 3, 2007

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable.

Paul leads in donations from military voters, with Obama next

Houston Chronicle | October 18, 2007
By BENNETT ROTH, RICHARD S. DUNHAM and CHASE DAVIS

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the congressman from the Houston area who opposes the Iraq war, has gotten more contributions than any other White House contender from donors identified as affiliated with the military.

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.

Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.

He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.

The military contributions — nearly 1,000 of them are listed in Federal Election Commission records for this year — represent a small fraction of the overall contributions to the candidates.

Paul, whose campaign Web site notes his military service as a flight surgeon in the Air Force in the 1960s as well as his opposition to the current war, raised a total of $5 million from July through September alone. Also, many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate.

Nevertheless, analysts said the ability of Paul and Obama to rake in as much money from military employees as they did suggests there is a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the Iraq campaign among veterans and those in uniform.

One of the contributors to Paul's campaign was Lindell Anderson, 72, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth, who donated $100 to the Texas lawmaker.

"As a Christian, I think he speaks to a theme that the United States shouldn't be the policeman of the world," said Anderson.

Anderson said he strongly disagrees with Republicans who call Paul anti-military: "He spent five years in the military. People in the military have to respect his integrity" whether or not they agree with him on the war.

But an official with the American Legion, the veterans' service organization that has supported the Iraq war, said she didn't know why military employees support Paul.

"I don't know the rhyme or reason behind it," said Ramona Joyce. "It's America. Anybody can throw their money at who they want to."

At the Texas headquarters of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Austin, state adjutant Roy Grona said military personnel do not vote as a bloc.

"There's probably a lot of veterans that aren't happy with the war in Iraq," he said.

Grona said Paul has been endorsed by the VFW in his congressional races in part because of his support for veterans' benefits.

The average size of Paul's contributions from military sources is $500, with donations ranging from $50 to the maximum $2,300.

More than a third of Paul's military-related contributions came from Army affiliates; a third came from the Air Force; and a fourth from Navy donors. The rest came from affiliates of the Marines and other branches.

Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the non-partisan Cook Political Report, speculated that Paul might be an attractive candidate for military personnel who oppose the war, "but don't want to cross the line and vote for a Democrat."

Paul has made withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a criticism of aggressive U.S. foreign policy central themes of his maverick campaign.

Kent Snyder, Paul's campaign chairman, said the contributions were evidence that many in the military agreed with the candidate's position.

"I guess they want to get out of Iraq, too," said Snyder.

Texas A&M political science professor George C. Edwards III attributed support for Obama among the military to the factors that he attracts support from many black voters, and blacks are a bigger proportion of the military than their overall share of the national population.

Edwards, who was a guest professor at West Point for three years, said "an awful lot of people in the military just think this war has been a disaster for the Army."

He said they believe the war has "stretched it thin, used its supplies and has been bad for morale."

"They may be quite upset and this is a way they can do something about it," he said.

Obama's support came from across the military, including a squad leader in the Army, a member of the Navy stationed at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, and state Rep. Juan Garcia, a Democrat from Corpus Christi.

Garcia, a retired Navy pilot, serves as an instructor at the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi with the Naval Reserves.

"The men and women of the military are looking for a leader like Barack Obama who will turn the page on foreign policy and national security issues," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

Edwards attributed McCain's backing to his being "a former military guy." McCain received the largest number of supporters from Navy, in which he served.

"John McCain has extremely strong support among veterans, especially in the early primary states," spokesman Brian Rogers said. "He's a veteran himself and he's been there for them on the issues for over 20 years."

chase.davis@chron.com

Christians Should Support Constitutional Government

by Chuck Baldwin - October 30, 2007

I was honored to speak before the National Committee of the Constitution Party on Thursday, October 25, 2007 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Today's column is a condensed version of that address.

Daniel Webster is regarded as perhaps America's most notable jurist. Webster said, "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

He also said, "The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever."

Please remember that this is the same Daniel Webster who said: "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

You see how Daniel Webster (like most of America's founders) was a man with deeply-held Christian convictions. He believed the Bible. He was a devout believer. And he found no contradictions between the Bible and the Constitution. In fact, he believed (as do I) that the Constitution is the best safeguard for Christian liberty that we have.

When any constitutionally-elected officeholder assumes office, he or she promises to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They don't promise to represent "conservative principles" or to be "loyal to a political party," etc. The Constitution is the contract between "We the people" and our civil magistrates.

When you or I hire an electrician or plumber to do work for us, we sign a contract for specific work to be done. And at the end of the day, I really don't care whether he claims to be a Christian or where he goes to church or how religious he claims to be. When the work is finished, I want my lights to turn on and my toilet to flush. In other words, I expect him to live up to his contract.

When we elect people to public office, we should expect only one thing: that they uphold their contract to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

You see, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.

In fact, keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. In most nations, the federal government holds power over virtually every area of the lives of its people. Not so in America--at least, not in the America that was originally crafted.

Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that "the government that governs least governs best."

Accordingly, America's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us--not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.

Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.

Today, we have federal departments and agencies almost without number. We have the Department of Education, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of the Interior, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Each and every federal department and agency, in its own way and for its own purposes, to one degree or another, ignores or violates constitutional government. And as a result, they contravene and strip away the rights and freedoms of States collectively and of the people individually.

The result of this gargantuan federal monstrosity includes back-breaking taxation and over-regulation, which fuel inflation, stymie productivity, and invite foreign influence.

One only has to observe how President Bush is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an illegal Mexican alien who raped and murdered two Houston, Texas teenagers, arguing that his death sentence should be overturned and that he should be given a new trial. Bush's reason? Illegal aliens should be under the authority of a UN "world court" instead of the State of Texas' authority.

Observe how Bush is pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens. See how he has merged these United States into a regional government by signing onto the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement with Canada and Mexico. See how he is pushing for a NAFTA superhighway. Observe how he and other globalists are planning to replace the U.S. dollar with a regional, multinational currency called the Amero.

Furthermore, virtually every administration for the last fifty years has engaged in an aggressive nation-building foreign policy. (Can anyone say, "Iraq"?) In addition, in contradiction to the stated warnings of our nation's founders, they have actively pursued entangling alliances with unfriendly governments. The past three administrations in particular have deliberately steered our country down a path of multiculturalism, globalism, and elitism.

Pastors, especially, should fight for constitutional government! Do you preachers really think that there will be any room for the old-time Gospel when the globalists and elitists in the federal government have finished with their diabolical schemes?

Already, President Bush repeatedly tells us that Christians and Muslims--and all other religions--worship the same God. How long will you preachers be able to preach the narrow message of salvation, that Christ is the only way to Heaven, when Bush's doctrine of Universalism is the accepted religion? And make no mistake about it: Universalism is the national religion of the United Nations, the European Union, and the emerging North American Union.

The Department of Homeland Security is already holding seminars for pastors, instructing them how they should ask their congregants to turn in their firearms in the event that the President declares a national emergency. How many of you pastors are prepared to become an instrument of gun confiscation for global government?

This is what happens when we abandon constitutional government.

It is not enough that a candidate says he is a Christian. Every politician I know, or have ever known, says they are a Christian--at least every four years. It is not enough that a candidate carries a giant-print Bible to church. It is not enough that he says he prays or says that "faith is important."

The truth is, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he or she will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise? He couldn't.

Therefore, a professing believer who is elected to public office and then ignores his or her promise to the Constitution proves that he or she is not a true Christian but a phony who only uses a religious testimony to dupe Christians.

Take the issue of abortion, for example. Ron Paul proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency"

The bill also provides that "the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect unborn children..." And that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review ...the performance of abortions; or the provision of public expenses of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions."

In other words, Dr. Paul understands that Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress the authority to rein in an abusive judiciary and take the issue of abortion (or homosexual marriage or fill in the blank) out from under the jurisdiction of the Court. This means that should Congressman Paul's bill become law, abortion on demand ends and Roe v Wade is overturned.

So, please tell me why, after having control of both houses of Congress and the White House for six years, did these "pro-life" Republicans in Congress and a "pro-life" President not pass Dr. Paul's bill? Why? Because they really do not give a hoot about abortion, but only use pro-life rhetoric to dupe conservative voters.

In addition, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives--especially Christian conservatives--mostly subscribed to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. As Christians, however, we should still subscribe to "just war."

In concert with "just war" philosophy (not to mention American history), Christians should agree with Ron Paul's approach to dealing with terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

How can anyone say with a straight face that they are fighting a war on terrorism while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to secure our borders and ports?!

I submit that every true American, especially conservative Christians, should enthusiastically support constitutional government. I further believe that a President who would take his oath to the Constitution seriously would bring a new birth of freedom to America the likes of which has not been seen since 1776. May God give us such a man!

Do Christians And Muslims Worship The Same God?

by Chuck Baldwin - October 23, 2007

According to President George W. Bush, Christians and Muslims worship the same god. In fact, President Bush believes that EVERYONE worships the same god, whether they be Christians, Muslims, or people of any other religion. Don't take my word for it: Mr. Bush made these statements himself. I reported President Bush's remarks in this column just recently.

See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071016.html

And http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071009.html

For the sake of those who missed it, ABC's Charles Gibson recently interviewed President George W. Bush. Here is a verbatim transcript from that interview:

Q. "Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?"
A. "I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty."

Q. "Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?"
A. "Yes they do. We have different routes of getting there."

Then, just a few days ago, President Bush, in an interview with Al Arabiya television, said, "I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God." In the same interview he said, "I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality."

Obviously, this is not the confession of a Christian. It is the confession of a universalist.

Bush's beliefs remind me of the book co-authored by Muhammad Ali, Thomas Houser, and Richard Dominick entitled Healing: A Journal of Tolerance and Understanding. In this book Muhammad Ali writes, "If you're a good Muslim, if you're a good Christian, if you're a good Jew: it doesn't matter what religion you are, if you're a good person, you'll receive God's blessing." (p. 3)

"The great monotheistic religions of the world all worship the same God. They just call him by different names." (p. 9)

"All people serve the same God. We just serve Him in different ways." (p. 32)

By definition, both President Bush and Muhammad Ali believe the same thing: they are both universalists.

Baker's Dictionary of Theology, page 539, defines Universalism this way: "Universalism is the doctrine of ultimate well-being of every person. The doctrine has a pagan and a Christian form. According to the former, all will ultimately be happy because all are, by nature, the creatures and children of God. The universalistic heresy (it is rejected by the general tradition of the church--Eastern, Roman and Protestant) in Christianity teaches that although all of the human creatures of God have fallen into sin and are lost, all will be saved through the universal redemption of Christ."

President Bush's infatuation with universalism is tied to his commitment to universal (or global) government. You see, Bush is part of an elitist cabal that is attempting to carve out an international New World Order. And in order for global (or even regional) government to take shape, there must be an acceptance of global religion. In other words, universalism is the religion of the New World Order, the United Nations, and all those who desire global government.

To anyone who understands the true message of Christ, however, the doctrine of universalism is anathema.

Every true believer in Christ understands Him to be the God-Man, the Creator-God become flesh (John 1:1-3, 14). We understand that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (John 14:6). We take Christ at His word, when He told us, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) We believe Him when He said, "[H]e that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14:9) We understand that Jesus is the "fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9)

No real Christian could say that every religion worships the same God or that everyone is going to Heaven, regardless of who or what they worship. Only a universalist could make such a statement. I say it again, President Bush is a universalist.

Furthermore, because President Bush has convinced everyone that he is a Christian, his erroneous remarks portend much evil. Why? Because many professing Christians will take the word of an apostate President over the word of their own pastors or even the very Word of God. This is not to mention the damage he has done to the testimony of Christ in giving unbelievers a false sense of security in worshipping false gods and believing false doctrines.

Accordingly, I invite readers to view a Sunday address that I just recently delivered to the people of my church. The title of the address is, "Do Christians and Muslims Worship The Same God?" There is no charge to watch or download this video sermon. One may even download the message as an MP3 file for use in one's IPOD. In fact, I pray that God will give the message wide distribution. It just might be the most important message I have ever delivered. See the video sermon here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sermonvideo.html

After listening to this message, a visitor told one of our ushers on the way out, "I came here believing in universalism. But now I am a Christian." I am afraid that there are many tens of thousands of people attending our churches all across America today who are not Christians, but have followed President Bush into the false religion of universalism. Please watch the video sermon.

Plus, if anyone would like to have DVD copies made of this video sermon, we might be able to make these available as well. If you are interested in having a DVD of this sermon, please write admin@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Ron Paul Discussion With Talk Show Host Bob Enyart

This is a continuing discussion on TruthTalkLive.com (go here to see the entire thread) with talk show host Bob Enyart...

---

Bob Enyart Says:
October 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Troy, Ron Paul states explicitly that he is pro-choice state by state (see his answer below, to a question asked by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul’s his principles (actually, a lack thereof) and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder.

Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview July 14, 2007:

Question: Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute…? [and that each state should define what they believe on their own? If the constitution defines a right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]

Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights, has legal inheritance rights from the day of conception. I as a physician if I injure the fetus, I have liabilities; if you are in a car accident or someone commits a violent act, and kills fetus, they are liable and responsible. But all acts of violence under our constitution are dealt with at the local level, murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter; all these things and are done locally, and they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues. So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations, and punishments, for acts of violence. I believe strongly that this should be at the local level. Therefore, I would not support Roe vs. Wade, but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don’t fight for the right to life; and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery, or in the third trimester, which is now legal, I as a physician could be paid for [aborting that child], at the same time, we have devised a system here today that if the baby is born, and the teenager or whomever throws the baby away, they’re charged with murder. But if you are careless with this attitude, it’s more than just a privacy issue; and [if you] say, well, the privacy of the mother is the only concern, but no, it’s whether or not a living being is involved. If it were only the privacy issue, I believe our homes are our castles, and that government shouldn’t have cameras there; they should never intrude. But I do not say that because our homes are our castles, that we have the right to murder our children. Nobody really endorses that. So, it’s very hard intellectually, to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards. And I think it deserves a lot of attention, but I also recognize that it’s difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. That’s why we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level. Because if you depend on the federal level to decide these issues, you end up saying, well, it’s in the courts, the Supreme Court should rule; and they legislated through that Roe vs. Wade incident, and they actually got very involved in details of the medical process of when and what abortions could be done. So, I think our system is, that you reject that notion, honor the commitment to the Constitution, and try to solve these difficult problems at the local level. And I am quite sure it will not be solved, and the solutions will not be perfect. We don’t live in a perfect world, and we have to accept the political process that gives us the best answers.

---

(My Reply)Troy Says:

October 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am

Bob, frankly, your inclusion of the above interview with Ron Paul shows his understanding of the issue but more importantly his undeniable Pro-life stance. You are visibly putting words in Ron Paul’s mouth to say he is “pro-choice state by state”. The very first sentence in the transcript you posted is that he treats abortion like other “acts of violence”. I guess he means the legal kinds of acts of violence? Your view is overtly skewed by your distaste for Libertarianism. Ron Paul, although long associated with that political view and party, does not ascribe to all that the Libertarian party and many Libertarians promotes. Let’s remember that he has been a Republican Congressman for many years and is in fact running as the Republican nomination. To disqualify Ron Paul because of his association with the Libertarian party and speaking at their convention is ludicrous. If anything can be said about Libertarians it’s that they have a very broad spectrum of beliefs, some extreme some very conservative, like Paul’s. Let’s see, he spoke at the National Right to Life convention as well so following this logic, that proves he is Pro-life, right? Come on.

In the transcript you cite above, he is more than clear that the federal government has proven what the founders knew. The states are where “all acts of violence are dealt with” and he clearly lumps abortion in with “murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter” for a reason, he clearly sees them as the same thing. In other words, abortion to him is already a crime to be dealt with at the state level.

Ron Paul is for State’s Rights, as were the authors of our Constitution. But for you to imply that the Federal Government is more qualified at or has more authority from God to protect life than does the states is to deny the original intent and wisdom of the founding documents, despite their flaws. This is faulty policy as seen in the current position of the court. Abortion is “legal” now precisely because of the federal courts over stepping their authority. What in the world makes you think that this will change by giving the federal courts more power? If the federal court can give a right or authority, it can take it away. The founders knew the tendency of the federal government to merely increase in power and trample State’s as well as human rights, rights given to us by God, not man as acknowledged in the founding documents. Remember Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling. Restricting the court’s power is the antidote since men tend to ignore constitutional restraints altogether, particularly the tenth amendment.

Ron Paul’s legislation which I directly referred to, H.R. 2597 has the wording to restrict the federal courts from “Roe v. Wade” style legislating.

“(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.”

“ To protect lives”. It is not permission for states to legalize abortion, although lawyer types will undoubtedly argue this both ways, hence the need to “argue” the handling of the crime of abortion, closer to the people – at the state level. Paul’s point in your example above is clearly that abortion is illegal under the Constitution already and that the manner in which it is dealt with currently is inconsistent with the handling of other crimes, due to the Supreme Court’s meddling.

This and the other wording in the actual bill text returns the power to the states to legally ignore Roe v. Wade along with any further federal judicial mandates that might come from the bench in regard to unborn humans, or anything else the Court wishes to “interpret” in the “spirit” of the Constitution rather than the strict construction of it.

Again, why would legislation be needed to allow states to legalize something already viewed as legal across the country via the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling? The federal courts have already overruled human rights by assuming powers not vested them in the Constitution.

Ron Paul is one of few politicians who understands that the Constitution is a limit on federal powers, period. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The authors’ main concern was a central government with too much power. They definitely were not for federal power to legislate morality or to form a Theocracy. Only God could justly rule by that means. The founders knew all too well the end result of excessive centralized power and thus were focused on limiting it. For you to imply that a federal Judiciary would remain in favor of protecting life better than the states, you have to ignore the last several decades of pro-abortion rulings from the very courts you seem to want to trust… courts controlled by “conservative” as well as liberal judges. You must be consistent with much of what you have spoke out against in regard to the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” which I agreed with you on almost completely. Federal regulation of most issues usually compounds the problems that already existed and solves nothing, ex. The “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc, and only results in money being wasted and stolen “in the name of” those programs. This is undeniable.

The Supreme Court is a part of the problem, not the solution. In Federalist 45, James Madison states the constitutional principle that Ron Paul understands and that is clearly stated in our Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” [Italics added]

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 81, makes it clear that the Supreme Court, under the Constitution, is not a completely separate and independent body else it would have the ability to “write” law and thus be more powerful than any branch.

“The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous.”

He goes on…

“In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

Reading the entire paper gives you the insight that is needed and the justification for limiting the Supreme Court greatly. Abortion is no different than any other form of murder which is dealt with at the state level. It belongs there, like the death penalty, according to the Constitution.

The alternative is exactly where we find ourselves and is why Ron Paul introduced House bill H.R. 300, “We the People Act” which restricts the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to Constitutional levels. This is only necessary because the Supreme Court ignores their Constitutional restraints.

The real problem in understanding here is that many conservatives now follow a neo-conservative mindset that has been brought on gradually. That the solutions to our country’s wrongs are to be found and implemented by the federal government. This way of thinking has snuck into the GOP as well as the Church and looks as much like liberalism or socialism as it does anything. The idea that the federal government can solve any social problems, provide any benefit effectively and handle controversial interpretations is absurd and fails miserably in the test of time. The suggestion that the federal government can be trusted with matters of protecting individual life is equally illogical. If it can define life, it can most certainly declassify it.

The only resolution given to us by our founding documents for the punishment for abortion is the same as punishing capital crimes, which the Constitution permits and is delegated to the states. I must qualify that with the premise that murder is already illegal and that life is already endowed by the Creator and guaranteed us by the Constitution (except in matters where the Supreme Court has “interpreted” it away.) And for us to return to the constitutional protection of life to be carried out and prosecuted by the states, the abortion “debate” must be removed from the Supreme Court, which decided it oligarchically by fiat ruling already. This is the purpose of Ron Paul’s H.R. 2597 “the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007”.

Please consider having Ron Paul, the Libertarian, on your show for an interview/debate. I think that would be great, don't you?

---

Troy Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 11:52 am

And let me add this in light the insistent point of Paul’s libertarian leanings:

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul - 1981

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the “right” to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the “right” of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

Originally published as a 1981 article in LFL Reports: #1.

Ron Paul, M.D., was born in 1935. He is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University, and served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard.

Congressman Paul (R-TX) and his wife Carol have five children. They make their home in Lake Jackson, Texas, where the Congressman practiced obstetrics and gynecology.

Convinced that the size, power, and cost of the Federal government had to be cut for our free society to survive, Dr. Paul ran for Congress and won a special election in April 1976. He was sworn in for his first full term in January 1979, representing the 22nd District until 1984. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. In 1996, he returned to the Republican Party and again won election to Congress.

---

Troy Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

And the pertinent portion again, just to be clear, in case someone missed it, in light of Mr. Enyart’s above accusations concerning Dr. Paul…

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.