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.

President Bush Defends Rapist-Murderer To Appease Mexico - Pastor Chuck Baldwin

by Chuck Baldwin
October 12, 2007

It seems President George W. Bush will stop at no lengths to appease Mexico and place the United States under international authority. His latest fiasco, however, twists logic, mocks justice, and defies decency.

I am referring to the fact that President Bush is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the death penalty of an illegal Mexican alien convicted of brutally raping and murdering two Houston, Texas teenagers back in 1993. (I wrote about this case already. See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070413.html )

Here is Word Net Daily's (WND) latest report of the story: "At issue is the death penalty verdict for Jose Medellin, who confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin then boasted of keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

"The Bush administration is before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the death penalty, at the behest of the International Court of Justice, a division of the United Nations.

"Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison."

(See the full WND report at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58063 )

Why, you ask, would President Bush appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an illegal alien who murdered two American teenagers? According to administration officials, it is because "the Texas court [that convicted and sentenced Medellin] is undermining the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy."

You read it right. President Bush is defending a rapist-murderer, because the man is an illegal alien and, therefore, should be turned over to the authority of a UN "world court." And, according to Bush, for the State of Texas to refuse to do so undermines the President's efforts to conduct foreign policy.

One has to wonder: just what kind of foreign policy does President Bush want to conduct? Apparently, Bush's foreign policy determines that it is more important to appease the Mexican government than see justice done for two American families who had their teenage daughters raped and murdered by an illegal alien from Mexico.

Remember, this is from a President who, when he was Governor of Texas, signed more than 150 death warrants. This is the same man who mocked condemned prisoner Karla Faye Tucker after she had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as her personal Savior and had appealed to Bush for clemency. In fact, George W. Bush just might be the only chief executive in American history to publicly mock someone who was about to die.

See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/karla.html

See also http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/canopy/2525/karlamain.html

See also http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670

In his autobiography, "A Charge To Keep," G.W. Bush addressed the subject of granting clemencies for people convicted of capital crimes. He said that it was not his job "to replace the verdict of a jury unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair." He has now obviously forgotten this principle.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz is arguing on behalf of the state court and its death penalty. He called Bush's actions "breathtaking." He told the Houston Chronicle, "It is emphatically not the province of the president to say what the law is. If this president's assertion of authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the books?"

According to WND, Alliance Defense Fund Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull said he expected justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg to side with President Bush. For example, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was General Counsel with the ACLU, she wrote a law review article "advocating that American foreign policy be under the United Nations." According to Bull, the Medellin case "is manna from heaven" for Ginsburg.

The Medellin case might be manna from heaven for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but it is rotten potatoes for the American people. And President Bush is the cook in the kitchen serving up this garbage.

Is it any wonder that former Mexican President Vicente Fox told Larry King Live last Tuesday evening that he and President Bush had agreed to "create a new regional currency in the Americas." (See the story at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58052 )

Fox was asked by a listener what he felt about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency. According to the CNN transcript obtained by WND, "Fox answered in the affirmative, indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas--a free trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency."

Is there anyone who cannot see what Bush is doing? He has committed the United States to a trilateral, hemispheric government in which each of the three nations--the U.S., Mexico, and Canada--are united under one regional authority. This is why President Bush demonstrates such stubborn resistance to any plan that would attempt to keep the United States independent of this newly formed regional authority.

Because of Bush's plan to merge the U.S. into a North American Community, he is determined to grant illegal aliens amnesty, and he is willing to demand that illegal aliens who rape and murder American citizens must be turned over to a "world court."

It is time the American people face the reality that President Bush is deliberately and intentionally sacrificing America's sovereignty and independence in order to fulfill his elitist plans for global unification. If our congressmen and senators had any real courage, they would impeach this man and his Vice President for treason.

The sad reality is, however, many of our congressmen and senators are just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. Furthermore, if the American people themselves would break away from "American Idol" and their favorite college football games long enough to see what was really happening in this country, we would not have these bozos in Congress to begin with.

America's biggest threat is not from al Qaeda; it is from these conniving internationalists in Washington, D.C. An al Qaeda terrorist can possibly knock down a building or bridge and kill a few of us, but these traitors (from both major parties) in Washington have the power to enslave the whole country--and that is exactly what they are in the process of doing.

So, in the name of "conducting foreign policy," President George W. Bush is doggedly defending a Mexican rapist-murderer. However, what he is really doing is working to appease his elitist Mexican counterparts so they together can implement their New World Order agenda. I don't know about anyone else, but it makes me want to puke!

DR. JAMES DOBSON ON RON PAUL - Devvy Kidd

Devvy Kidd
October 11, 2007 - NewsWithViews.com

Americans feel very strongly about their faith. Evangelical Christians are not only fierce in their beliefs, but they have become a force to be reckoned with particularly when it comes to the election of a president. The 2008 roster of candidates is causing a considerable amount of anguish with leaders like Dr. James Dobson, who commands the loyalty of millions of Evangelical Christians. Many supporters of Ron Paul simply don't understand why Dr. Dobson and other leadership voices of faith dismiss Congressman Paul as not even worthy of mention considering his consistent pro-life position.

In a recent NY Times op-ed piece titled 'The Values Test,' Dr. Dobson said:

"After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous...."The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear."

I absolutely agree with Dr. Dobson that an individual who truly has a value system they believe in, cannot in good conscious vote for any candidate with toxic moral values just because they're the lesser of the two evils because that's what the party machine has shoved down your throat. That's why I didn't vote for Bush, Clinton or Bush, Sr. Electability (lesser of the two evils) is the big propaganda hammer used to keep the peasants in line and voting for their own destruction.

I'm working on a special section for my web site on each of the presidential candidates, so the sake of brevity here and what's germane to this column, let's look at the position of the Republican candidates on just two value issues so important to Dr. Dobson and Christians: sanctity of human life and support of sexual deviants (sodomites and lesbians). Here's thumbnail sketch on GOP candidates:

Cross dresser, serial adulterer, Rudy Julie Annie supports the murder of unborn babies, believes sexual deviants should be protected, but claims he is against same sex marriage.

John McCain, serial adulterer and betrayer of our POW/MIAs: "Abortion issues: McCain supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0% in 2006. He supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 75% in 2005-2006. He supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0% in 2005." Dr. Dobson refuses to endorse McCain because he opposed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. McCain supports legal benefits for sexual deviants.

Flim-flam man, Mitt Romney: "Same sex issues: Has supported gay partnership recognition, but opposes civil unions and same sex marriage. Source Governor Mitt Romney, who frequently tells Republican audiences that every child has a right to have a mother and father, acknowledged yesterday that same-sex couples have ''a legitimate interest" in adopting children." Romney is in favor of sexual deviants adopting innocent children? No doubt some of these folks at this street fair in SF in broad daylight are same sex parents (many small children were in attendance); CAUTION: these three pages are extremely explicit with nudity. The people you see at that link are "respected" by Mike Huckabee; yes he has said you should "respect gay couples." Romney was pro baby killing, but for some reason decided it wasn't really okay to kill unborn babies now that he's running for the presidency so he's become pro-life.

In my research I ran across a web site hosted by Evangelicals for Mitt which contains this statement: "Even if you think Governor Romney has cynically "flip-flopped" on abortion, do you really think he'd do it again as president?" How about asking the babies murdered while Romney supported abortion how they feel? Romney ran pro-abortion to get elected governor of Massachusetts; he had an epiphany which lasted all of two months when he turned right around and appointed a judgeship to a Democrat who is pro-abortion. Old Mitt also said his epiphany came after a meeting on stem cell research, but then flip-flopped in 2005 and declared his support for a House bill lifting President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Tom Tancredo: "Co-sponsored legislation that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide. Voted "yes" on a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in the U.S. consists only of the union of a man and a woman, and federal and state constitutions can not be construed to require marriage or legal incidents of marriage be conferred in other unions." Pro-life.

Sam Brownback: Marriage is between a man and woman; pro-life.

Although Almighty God doesn't, wishy-washy Mike Huckabee "respects" sexual deviants. Supports marriage between man and woman. Against civil unions, but respects "gay" couples. It's called pandering for votes. Supports constitutional amendment to protect unborn babies.

Duncan Hunter: Opposes civil unions; is 100% pro-life.

Fred Thompson: Claims that despite media reports, he's never been pro-abortion. Opposes constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Personally opposes civil unions, but says the issue should be left to states.

Dr. Alan Keyes: "The effort to equate homosexual and lesbian relations with legal marriage represents a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family." Also: "In addition to overturning Roe v. Wade, we need a Human Life Amendment that respects life and restores our respect for the will of God."

Dr. Ron Paul: 100% pro-life. "As president, one of my priorities will be restoring the 10th amendment and federalism. Decisions about issues like civil unions or right-to-die legislation should be made by the states, not the federal government. I will stop federal judges from imposing new definitions on the States." See his column here on Federal Marriage Amendment.

What Ron Paul is saying is the same thing Joseph Story, associate justice, U.S. Supreme Court, said in Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:

"Another not unimportant consideration is that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state."

In other words, when the states created the Congress from the U.S. Constitution authorizing this body, they meant that the powers specifically enumerated to the federal government would primarily deal with external matters, while the states themselves would concentrate on issues that "concern the lives and liberties, and property of the people...." This is the Tenth Amendment in a nut shell.

The reasons for sexual deviants gaining so much power is three-fold:

(1) The number of sodomites and lesbians serving in public office, put there by a morally bankrupt segment of our population who have bought into the propaganda of alleged "rights" for sexual deviants who choose their filthy, dangerous lifestyles (sexual preference predated sexual orientation). It's not the U.S. Constitution that's the problem, Dr. Dobson, it's people who have flushed their moral values in favor of political correctness;

(2) Federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court. In his outstanding work, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, Dr. Edwin Vieira, painstakingly walks the American people through the actions of runaway, lawless judges and the all important Lawrence v Texas case. One must read this book to fully understand the issue and I would invite seriously concerned Americans like Dr. Dobson to read Edwin's scholarly work on this important issue.

Dr. Paul also covers this in one of his columns, Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny: "Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended." This is a critically important column on this issue and I submit to you that either you support the U.S. Constitution or you're one of those folks who wants to apply it only when it suits your purposes.

(3) The churches in this country. This news item came about because I requested NWVs cover an alert I received from Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. After Randy sent out this critical alert for Californians to get on the phone to Schwarzenegger's office, one church responded. One. I guess these social houses are too busy promoting the "hooks" many churches are now employing to bring the faithful to their good time joints. As soon as I got that alert from Randy, I called my family in California to get on the phone and tell Arnie to veto these dangerous bills and yet, one church in California felt moved to respond. I guess they're all going to "pray on it."

Dr. Dobson has unequivocally eliminated McCain, Rudy Julie, Thompson and most likely Romney from his list to endorse. Dr. Dobson speaks passionately that he will not vote strictly on the electability issue. If that's the case, why hasn't he jumped right out there and endorsed Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback, Keyes or Tancredo? They all pass his litmus test on abortion and none of them will get the nomination at the convention next year. I know that Huckabee is popular with sincere individuals like Janet Folger of Values Voter.org, but Huckabee has ZERO qualifications to be president of these united States of America because he has little understanding of constitutional government and it shows during these debates and his speeches.

With one glaring exception, there is one major issue that every candidate above is in full compliance with Dr. Dobson: his continued support for the unconstitutional, immoral invasion of Iraq. Dr. Dobson has called this destruction of Iraq a "noble war." He's on record as saying he supports this quagmire in Iraq because it "saves lives." These candidates all support the continued lunacy of this undeclared invasion: McCain, Rudy Julie, Huckabee (because "we broke it now we have to fix it"), Hunter, Thompson, Brownback, Tancredo (who also voted for the "Patriot" Act), Romney and Alan Keyes. The lone voice of sanity and reason, Ron Paul, voted against the use of our military against Iraq.

In other words, every GOP candidate except Ron Paul supports Dr. Dobson on this continued war mongering by Bush. Could that be the reason Dr. Dobson has remained silent on Ron Paul's candidacy and not Dr. Paul's high moral standards? I don't know. I only know Dr. Dobson's silence on Ron Paul is strange. One other thing that bothers me. Dr. Dobson would rather direct his millions of devoted followers to a "minor third party" when he knows at this time in history, a "third" party candidate cannot garner enough electoral college votes to win when there is a moral, pro-life candidate like Ron Paul running. I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution Party, but reality is reality.

Despite the media campaign in assisting the rotten, corrupt GOP machine get their choice of liars, cheats and constitutionally challenged candidates nominated next year at the GOP convention, nobody should count Ron Paul out just yet. Ron Paul is the human equivalent of Seabiscuit! While Ron Paul isn't the fire breathing orator the great Patrick Henry was, he is the only true statesman in my lifetime. He has delivered more than 4,000 babies, has never, ever changed his position on the issues and speaks so eloquently of constitutional government, Americans weep when they see his speeches. The Ron Paul phenomenon is growing every day and we shall see what happens next summer at the GOP convention because God help this nation if Ron Paul isn't our next president.

Support a Greater Good - Why Christians Should Support Ron Paul for President

I want to address you, American Christian. All others are welcome to read and consider my points, and hopefully consider accepting Christ as Lord and in doing so, make this more relevant. But this will be directed at my brothers and sisters in Christ first. We as Christians seem to be more willing to place faith in something or someone and I believe sometimes it is blindly placed in something other than our Lord. This leads to enslavement, and usually we have a hard time realizing we are bound and thus an even harder time getting set free. My goal is to convince you to seriously consider our country’s future in regard to next year’s election, from a Christian point of view.

It is no secret that I am a staunch supporter of Texas Congressman Ron Paul for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. I know, “not another Ron Paul” message. Stay with me… It hasn’t been too difficult convincing people considering the condition of the Republican Party and the current political environment in America. Everywhere I hand out flyers for Ron Paul to fellow Americans people seem eager to hear of a refreshing choice running for president. There is now an amazing number of people who seem to have heard of and are positive about Dr. Paul and his freedom message. All in all there is great grassroots support for Ron Paul and his message and it’s only growing.

The biggest resistance I have seen to this incredible message so far has been within the ranks of evangelical Christianity on the radio, on T.V. and some believers I personally talk with. Don’t get me wrong, I know many informed believers who are behind Paul all the way and I may have convinced a few myself, but there are many who are skeptical, blindly loyal to party favorites, or more often than not, flat-out misinformed. Granted, this perception of mine may be slightly skewed because of limited associations, but I believe it is somewhat common because I was there myself not too long ago. So I can relate. But the most disturbing resistance to Ron Paul from fellow believers that I have noticed comes in the form of a lack of belief in possibilities. Few disagree with his constitutional stances but his lack of notoriety to some makes him “unelectable”. But wait a minute; is not anything possible with our God? Even a modern day political miracle that would no doubt help our country climb out of the moral pit in which we find ourselves? American Christians have long prayed for America’s return to Godliness and decency. I propose that a Paul Presidency could represent just that, if we have the faith to accept it. He could represent just that because the reparation of our national morals, in the political sense, must begin with a return to a respect for the rule of law, subsequent only to the Bible, our Constitution.

Where I think we have lost our way is our loyalty to men instead of truth; Godly, principled truth. What I want to accomplish in convincing you about Ron Paul is to convince you to choose and support this idea, the idea of freedom and liberty, rooted in the Constitution and ultimately scripture. An idea that has been propagandized and exploited until it no longer looks or means anything close to what it did just a hundred years ago or so. I can hear your programming kicking in “but what’s the point? It’s all controlled anyway. There is no chance so I must choose the least evil man.” I’ve become numb to such reasoning, if you can call it that. I used to think and say those words myself and I believed it. Come on, be a Joshua and Caleb! Whatever happened to Jesus’ statement “but with God all things are possible”? Forgive the lack of context but it is a general biblical fact regardless. Are American Christians that faithless or gutless that we will fall in line with whatever the world tells us is the “better” choice or “right” thing? I sure am glad our founding fathers did not use that line of reasoning, or we would still be an oppressed British colony. Remember, King George could (and did) point to his being ordained by God to rule. But this goes beyond the “lesser of two evils” mindset.

You’ve read this far, so let’s get to the real information. I want to point out what I consider some big reasons Ron Paul should be the Christian’s choice for president in 2008. Be willing to look into the information and learn. Be willing to consider that there is a real devil who works through men and the affairs of men. But also be willing to know that God asks us to not only win souls but to resist evil when we have the opportunity and are guided to do so in His Word and by His Spirit, and in a Representative Republic, that includes in government. Ask God to guide you in influencing this Republic that we have been blessed with and the responsibility to participate in through choosing and influencing our leaders. Then be willing to step out in faith that it can be done with a “great good” President rather than a “lesser evil” one.

For those still not familiar with Ron Paul, he is in his tenth term in the House of Representatives for the fourteenth district of Texas. He is an obstetrician, veteran flight surgeon, father, grandfather, and husband to the same wife of fifty years. He is a strict constitutionalist and has twenty years of votes in the House of Representatives to prove it. He has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to restrict gun ownership, never voted to raise congressional pay, never taken a government-paid junket, refuses to take the congressional pension and always returns part of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury to name a few accolades. For that record he has earned the nickname “Dr. No” for his extremely conservative voting record in the House. So to put it mildly, Dr. Paul has a record that is unmatched in Congress from the foreseeable past, or future for that matter.

But you say you have never heard of Ron Paul so he can’t win? Who says the media? Let me point you to the presidential election of 1948. Harry S. Truman, was predicted to lose big, so much so that he snuck away from election night festivities, went to a hotel room in another town and slept. The predictions continued throughout the night until Thomas E. Dewey, the overwhelmingly favored Republican candidate, conceded the next morning to a rested and surprised Truman. Newspapers had already been printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN”. This was during a time when most of it was televised and telephone polling was, like today, the mainstream’s preferred indicator of a candidate’s status with the voters. Truman’s victory came despite a three-way split of his own party as well. All along, national polls had told a different story.

But besides the unique historic precedent of the 1948 election, how electable, you might ask, is Congressman Paul, really?

First there is his record in Congress. It is undeniable, staunchly conservative, unusually consistent, and fiercely constitutional. He has served on and headed various committees during his twenty years service. And what about those skeletons in the old closet that always seem to surface during the heat of a presidential run? So far Ron Paul is spotless and only time can tell on that one. Rest assured, however, that the longer a person hangs in a national campaign, the more sure that will become one way or another. I do know this, he has been married to the same woman for fifty years, is not a member of any secret death cult societies from Yale, hasn’t frequented the pages of his local paper for impropriety or drunkenness and when drafted to military service during the Cuban crisis, he actually showed up and served and stayed after his two year requirement for a total of five. One other thing on his electability, he represents a farming district and gets reelected even though he consistently opposes farm subsidies. That makes Ron Paul some kind of enigma in politics doesn’t it?

Then there is the internet. This election has the potential to prove what many talk radio hosts like to point out about the mainstream press today. The mainstream presses lack of acknowledgement of Dr. Paul’s growing support may be an insignificant factor and indicator of American opinion and choice. Talk radio is rivaled only by the internet as a major source of news and information for Americans today. This could become the deciding advantage that one Republican has truly tapped into and this could be the first national election where it matters. Ron Paul is a giant on the internet.

Besides the obvious “conservative” stances that Ron Paul takes, monetary policy is on of his strongest yet little understood by the American people. Better stated, we all know something is wrong but we seldom understand it. Ron Paul is for sound money! America (and the world system for that matter) is a fiat, inflationary money system. Ron Paul is against fiat, inflationary money. Guess what, so is God. Leviticus 19:35 and 36 reads:

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I [am] the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

A study of this scripture reveals that this debasement of money that God forbid his people to conduct was carried out physically by shaving coins so as to decrease the real value of it with little or no notice, leaving the next person with a little less real money. It was stealing by physical depreciation, pure and simple. Fraud in weights was fraud in money. This occurs with our money system today when the FED “shaves” value from our Federal Reserve notes by printing more backed by nothing more than credit and debt. This fraud, Of course, benefits the ones who first had access to the money and did the shaving. In America’s case this would be the Federal Reserve followed by the government and then the other banks. There are other scriptures that deal with money debasement (something that is occurring intentionally in our system of money): Prov. 11:1, 20:10, 23; Isa. 1:22; Amos 8:5-6; Mic. 6:10-12

Make no mistake about it, the more you learn about our system of banking and money, the more you will realize it is the number one root of the evils in overall policy that we put up with as a nation. Congressman Ron Paul has consistently fought for a return to real money, against all odds, proposing the elimination of the FED and return to a gold standard. There are many good scholarly plans on how this can and should be done.

Along the same lines as the debasement of our money system is the oppression by our tax system which hurts the middle class and poor most. Ron Paul proposes abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing. This is not as radical as you might think considering income taxes collected do not even service the interest on the national debt, let alone begin to pay for anything. At the same time, Dr. Paul wants to eliminate most of the wasteful federal departments that supposedly make the income tax necessary.

Ron Paul takes the stance of the founding fathers when it comes to foreign policy. Be friends with all countries if possible but form alliances with none. Under a Ron Paul presidency America would stay out of the affairs of foreign countries while trading with all who care to play by the rules set by the American people as far as it does not violate the Constitution.

Ron Paul also realizes that to truly secure our great nation we must bring all American military forces home to both stop the meddling on other country’s soil as and more importantly to actually secure our borders for the first time in recent history. He believes war, according to the Constitution, is reserved to actually defending America and is the last resort. American “interests” usually represents “corporate” American “interests” and thus was excluded from the war powers as written in the Constitution. Of course Ron Paul believes that the Congress must declare war, not the President, something he insisted they do before the current war in Iraq, to no avail.

The “show stopper” for a believer in my opinion is abortion. But since (almost) all supposed “conservative” Republican candidates claim to oppose abortion, we must inspect the fruit. Dr. Ron Paul, being an Obstetrician (OB-GYN) that has delivered over 4000 babies believes that human life begins at conception as a medical fact along with his personal faith view as outlined in scripture. As for the fruit, he put his political money where his mouth is when he introduced “the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005” that would have made all abortions illegal and would have been effective immediately without requiring an overturning of Roe v. Wade. He had little support from an otherwise mute Republican controlled House or White House. It’s almost as if he is the only Republican serious about ending abortion.

I know that there are many areas of concern that Christians have today but I think I have touched on the ones that should be the most urgent to a believer concerning who to support as President of the United States. Considering that the evangelicals that have supported the Republican party faithfully in recent years have been “kicked to the curb” time and time again by the party, it should be a breath of fresh air to finally have a true conservative Christian man running for the nomination that has real fruit to back up the words coming from his mouth. We don’t have to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils this time around if we just have a little faith. Think about it, Ron Paul, after months of winning more straw polls than any candidate, winning most debates hands down, and finally being considered “top tier” by being one of the five “major” candidates now invited to the national GOP presidential fund raising dinner, and after raising over one million dollars in just seven days of online grassroots donations (actually $1,208,219.77 to be exact… in four days less than it took John Edwards to do the same thing), we have a very electable candidate that we can vote for and not compromise a single Christian principle in doing so. Now is the time to join a revolution that is happening with or without us but it is the right thing to do. This might be the last election in which that will occur and Christians don’t have to compromise.

This election, vote for the “greater good” candidate instead of the “lesser evil” one. Christians, support liberty. Support Ron Paul.

Urgent Call to Prayer

Christians,

If you are not actively praying for God to prevent an attack on Iran, please start doing so now. It will likely lead to a draft of our children and grand children, have a profoundly negative impact on oil prices... which effects everything, and will escalate a Middle East war into something out of (our) control. (I understand the sovereignty of God and that is not the issue here. Our responsibility is the issue.) We must be praying about this impending attack regardless of your opinion of the justification for preemptive war. Our leaders have made it clear it is the preeminent (only) option to them.

   

    Listening to Shawn Hannity on my way home yesterday was sickening as he almost gleefully (and I mean he sounded excited about it) announced to his listeners that on the Hannity and Colmes Show last night they would "layout" in detail the upcoming US attack on Iran, like a pre-game football show or something. And Hannity is not the only one beating the drums of (more) war. A few of you may remember, it has been almost two years since I wrote to my representative, Howard Coble, about the desire of this administration to attack Iran. The drum beat has only gotten louder in neo-conservative as well as liberal circles. Please Pray about this!

    This week Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University along with his UN visit, providing both liberals and neo-conservatives all kinds of juicy talking points and sound bites to fan the flames of war fervor. But hold on a second. We can't let this "megalomaniac" develop nuclear technology because he will blow up our troops in Iraq or worse, Israel, right? So the Pentagon has been authorized to use a nuclear first strike on Iran to prevent them from gaining nuclear tech, err... weapons technology. (By the way, the CIA says that Iran is conservatively ten years away from having a nuclear weapon, not to mention an effective delivery system. The CIA says this!) Yes Ahmadinejad is a crazed dictator guilty and capable of all kinds of atrocities, but this week's visit to the US should serve as an eye opener to all thinking Americans.

Why did we not apprehend Ahmadinejad while he was here?

Think about it, the main justification for attacking Iran is this guy and the charges are:

1. he has said he wants to destroy Israel for good (we Bible believers know that is impossible, right?)


2. and that he is helping Al-Qaeda in Iraq with weapons and bomb making support.

... so we must bomb Iran? PRAY

    But the big news yesterday was that Ahmadinejad should not have been given a platform to speak here, even though Fox News helped spread his speech at the same time they were reporting how bad it was to give him a platform in America. Does that make any sense at all? Fox News aired the translated speech of the madman, live, the madman that Fox and others were so adamant about saying he deserves to not be heard (why carry him live then? Fair and balanced I guess.) Makes a lot of sense. Don't you see what is going on? Wake up! PRAY

   

    So why was there not an outcry to arrest this "criminal against humanity" while he was here instead of criticizing the University (we know where most colleges stand)? The only thing discussed by the news was whether he had a right to speak or not (of course he does not have a right to speak here, he's not an American! He has no rights here, not as a citizen.) Don't tell me diplomatic immunity afforded him as a UN member to not be arrested and to travel freely in our country. According to us, he is an enemy combatant. Not only that he is the source of the threat, right? Why was he not arrested while he was here to prevent a huge world war? We are way beyond the UN excuse. We only follow the UN rules when it benefits us (or when enforcing UN resolutions allows us to take military action), normally. Plus, this guy is killing our troops, right? He should have been arrested as soon as he set foot here. That would be worth preventing an actual war with Iran to supposedly accomplish the same thing.

    At the very least why was Ahmadinejad not invited to meet with the President at the White House for talks? The answer to that is obvious, sanctions on Iran don't end with goods going into the country, it extends to talks with the leader. Nation Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has openly stated that we will not be talking to Ahmadinejad. What a missed opportunity.

   

    So the thinking American now knows what the real goal is, if they were paying attention: Indefinite conflict in the Middle East. I propose that the results will be disastrous. Iran is completely different than Iraq (you do know they're Persian not Arab, you'd be suprised how many don't even know this) and they are allies with and customers/suppliers of China and Russia. Although Iran does not have much of a military, attacking Iran has the potential to set off all kinds of trouble worldwide. And Americans are o.k. with this? A draft will likely have to be instituted, more money will have to be borrowed (and the dollar depreciated) from China and others (this is how we are paying for Iraq now?) So I say again, why was Ahmadinejad not apprehended by the US on this trip. Think, think, think. No, pray, pray, pray.

   

    Let me mention one other point. Sometimes I get my hair cut at a place where there is an employee who is from Iran and has family in Iran. She has told me that much of Iran is very modern (boy is that gonna change) and westernized with cities, particularly Tehran, much like American cities. Something interesting was her comparison of the public school systems. She says that kids actually learn much more in Iranian schools than here. She has kids in school here and she is disappointed at how little they actually learn while at school and how much she has to teach them at night doing homework. When I ask here about the situation she says that her family there knows little about the danger of attack by the US and this has her worried. I could only tell her that I'm praying that an attack will be averted. PRAY



    If you can't see what is going on, believer, pray first that God will give you desire to know, then desire to understand. then pray that an attack will be averted somehow.



Please pray, pray, pray in Jesus' name.

---

Now for those who would say that this is all end time prophesy being fulfilled and that we must roll with it, read on...



    God's prophetic timetable is not in question by me. What I question greatly now is evangelical Christian's willingness to ignore the responsibilities laid out both in scripture as well as in our Constitution, both of which are being ignored and trampled by "end-times justifies the means" thinking. Yes we can understand the times and yes Jesus' return is the hope that we all have to look for and be ready for, but nowhere in scripture are we given the authority or permission to act contrary to the character of God as revealed in His Word based on what dispensation we "interpret" ourselves to be in. To do so is to yoke ourselves with the problems rather than solutions. For too long modern believers have been misguided and many times downright deceived by this way of thinking. It has made many lazy, ignorant, and ripe for bondage of all sorts.

    We must be like the people of Issachar in 1 Chronicles 12:32 "which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do" and the psalmist: "I understand more than the ancients, Because I keep Your precepts." (Psalms 119:100) It does not say "because I think your about to return".

    The Church used to ascribe to the Christian "Just War Theory" first developed by Augustine (Calvinists listen up) where war was the extreme case last resort and only for the self defense of the nation itself. This was the position of the founding fathers as well, partly because of the Just War Theory. But we find ourselves policing the world and nation building, neither of which are authorized by the Constitution, not even in the name of "the War on Terror".

Reading assignment: Look up "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" the Constitution's answer to terrorism that did not require a declaration of war (which we didn't do as required either.)

    I know that in our country it is difficult to know what's right but we have a Constitution, many writings from the guys that wrote and signed it and more importantly, that document is based on and consistent with the Bible. Turn to those sources for understanding and guidance and please PRAY that our elected representatives will as well or be stopped in the globalist, anti-American policies that are destroying this nation.



Pray

LAST WORD:

"Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Ephesians 6:13) " to stand" is a military term much like to hold the ground, not retreat, defend the position. In the spiritual sense we give up that ground if we justify our actions, or our country's actions (we are a Representative Republic... look up the people's responsibility) based on anything other than or ignoring scripture or the Constitution.



Troy Perkins

p.s. If anyone can give me a good reason why it didn't make sense to apprehend Ahmadinejad here instead of bombing Iran soon, I welcome your reasoning. Please.