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.

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS HAVE ONLY ONE CHOICE IN 2008

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 28, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often.

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

See the Freedom Index here.

Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment, click here.

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position.

In fact, 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. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from 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."

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 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.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "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."

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

Clergy Response Team...

"Clergy Response Teams" after martial law is declared? Pastors being trained to "quell dissent" during emergencies (This is in a FEMA program already in place - click to read)? Video below is an actual KSLA news report. If you begin to hear this from the pulpit, run. This report is very concerning considering the list below of the ten advances that have been put in place over the last six years.

1. The USA Patriot Act
2. Total Information Awareness
3. USA Patriot Act II
4. Military Commissions Act
5. John Warner Defense Authorization Act
6. Domestic Wiretapping Program
7. Expansion of Domestic Wiretapping Program
8. Presidential Decision Directive 51 - Martial Law
9. Destruction of the Dollar
10. Amnesty & The North American Union

These are summarized after the video report below so you will know what they are.
- Troy

Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law

News Report About Clergy Used In US Martial Law
Here it is on their website also.

---

The Timeline to Tyranny
Ten advances towards the end of freedom and privacy in the United States

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet | August 7, 2007

The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.

1) The USA Patriot Act

The party line often heard from Neo-Cons in their attempts to defend the Patriot Act either circulate around the contention that the use of the Patriot Act has never been abused or that it isn't being used against American citizens. Here is an archive of articles that disproves both of these fallacies.

The Patriot Act was the boiler plate from which all subsequent attacks on the Constitution were formed.

2) Total Information Awareness

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database," infamously wrote New York Times writer William Safire, announcing the birth of Total Information Awareness, a kind of Echelon on steroids introduced a year after 9/11.

TIA was not canned, it was simply removed from the newspaper, renamed and continues to operate under a guise of different programs.

3) USA Patriot Act II

The second Patriot Act was a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganized the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command.

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.

4) Military Commissions Act

Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror in passing the Military Commissions Act and officially ending Habeas Corpus.

There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.

The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

5) John Warner Defense Authorization Act

The Bush Junta quietly "tooled up" to utilize the U.S. military in engaging American dissidents after the next big crisis, with a frightening and overlooked piece of legislation that was passed alongside the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which greased the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus.

6. Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials," reported the New York Times on December 16, 2005

The secret warrantless spying program was a complete violation of both the 4th Amendment and FISA.

7) Expansion of Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

Not content with now being lawfully allowed to force ISP's and cell phone companies to turn over data about customers without a warrant, the Bush administration is pushing for even more authority to spy on American citizens, and has already been handed a 6 month window within which to impose any surveillance policy it likes, and for that program to remain legal in perpetuity.

The administration has a 6 month window in which to impose any surveillance program it chooses and that program will go unchallenged and remain legally binding in perpetuity - it cannot be revoked. Under the definitions of the legislation, Bush has been granted absolute dictator status for a minimum of 6 months.

If he so chooses, and so long as it's implemented within the next half year, Bush could build a database of every website visited by every American - and the policy would be immune from Congressional challenge even after the "surveillance gap" legislation reaches its sunset

8) Martial Law Presidential Decision Directive 51

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

9) Destruction of the Dollar

Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no,".

Stiglitz caused controversy in October 2001 when he exposed rampant corruption within the IMF and blew the whistle on their nefarious methods of inducing countries to fall under their debt before stripping them of sovereignty and hollowing out their economies. Stiglitz agreed that the process of hijacking and looting key infrastructure on the part of the IMF and World Bank, as an offshoot of predatory globalization, had now moved from the third world to Europe, the United States and Canada.

10) Amnesty & The North American Union

The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada and create a Pan American Union has long been a Globalist brainchild but its very real and prescient implementation on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations has finally been reported on by mainstream news outlets.

The framework on which the American Union is being pegged is the NAFTA Super Highway, a four football-fields-wide leviathan that stretches from southern Mexico through the US up to Montreal Canada .Coupled with Bush's blanket amnesty program, the Pan American Union is the final jigsaw piece for the total dismantling of America as we know it.

---------------------------------

Pray for our country, inform others and get involved. Tell your representatives that these things are unconstitutional and dangerous.

Executive Order has crossed the line - Consider Acting on this please...

Last night I wrote the following letter to my representative, emailed it and will be snail mailing a copy and calling his office today. If you care about retaining a constitutional government for at least for your kids, please read and understand this and do the same and let others know. I will paste the actual text of the Executive Order in question after the text of my letter to Congressman Howard Coble.

Understand, this has nothing to do with your support or lack of it for the war. Look at it this way if you believe that President Bush would not actually use the power he has written for himself, many are predicting a Hillary Clinton win next year... she would have this same Executive Order to operate under, thanks to Bush. (Executive orders were originally intended for the President to help direct operation of his officers within the administration and is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. They are now used as out of control lawmaking instruments.)

This is even worse than it sounds when you read it because of the other Executive orders and IEEPA it references. You can read them all using Google, feel free. But make no mistake, this one is worse than any I've seen.

Prayerfully, Troy

---

My letter (feel free to copy and edit for your own):

July 26, 2007

Howard Coble

2468 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-3306

Dear Mr. Coble,

Thank you again for your continued service in the House of Representatives. I am sharing this information with a large constituency.

Thomas Jefferson once said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I am writing to you because I just learned that last week, on July 17, 2007, President George W. Bush issued an Executive order titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq". The text of this executive order can be found at the Internet address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

This Executive order attempts to give the President the authority to seize any and all property of any American who publicly disagrees with his Middle East foreign policy and to do so without any recourse or due process. I believe this to be a violation of at least the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This is the President of the United States of America issuing edict with no regard for God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Congressman Ron Paul wrote back in June of 2004 that "If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting, 'we're at war'?"

James Madison said at the constitutional convention "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution".

Please introduce and/or support fast-track legislation to rescind this Executive order issued on July 17, 2007 relating to blocking property of those who disagree with President Bush's policy in Iraq. I believe this and other Executive orders and initiatives the President has undertaken rise to the level of at least high Crimes and Misdemeanors. He has attempted "to subvert the Constitution" therefore I believe you must consider impeachment proceedings for the President and reverse the destructive trend of the executive branch.

Sincerely with great concern,

Troy Perkins

---

The Actual Executive Order:

..>..>

..

.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

..[if gte vml 1]> ..[endif]-->..[if !vml]-->..[endif]--> Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

---

Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

->..->