Paul: GOP Doesn’t Care About Presidents Who Assassinate American Citizens
Steve Watson Prisonplanet.com
Republicans “trying to out-militarize” Obama
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said on CBS’ Face The Nation Sunday that he is determined to continue his campaign in an effort to “save the Republican Party from themselves”.
The Congressman declared that there was no way he would quit because he is the only candidate who wants to restore the Republican party to its founding principles of limited government.
“I am talking to a whole generation, which is expanding,” Paul said.
“When I can get 52,000 people out on a college campus as wildly enthusiastic to hear the message of liberty and freedom and less war and curtailing the Federal Reserve, there is no way I’m going to quit speaking out on this and there is no way I’m going to give up on the effort to get the Republicans back to their roots.”
“In some ways they say, ‘well why don’t you give up and this will help the Republican Party.’ The truth is I’m trying to save the Republican Party from themselves because they want perpetual wars,” Paul added.
“They don’t care about presidents who assassinate American citizens, they don’t care about searching our houses without a search warrant and these are the kind of things that people care about.
“I think Republicans have dug a hole for themselves because they’re trying to out-militarize the President, saying we should do more,” Paul said.
“Yet 75 percent of the American people have said we’ve had enough, it’s cost us too much money, it’s time to come home.”
When asked by Host Bob Schieffer if he would support Romney should he win the nomination, Paul responded: “I haven’t made that decision yet, I’m still campaigning.”
The Congressman also once again addressed the far flung notion that he could be invited to take on the role of vice president on a Romney ticket:
“I don’t see how that would happen. There’s too many disagreements … I have no common ground on economics.” Paul said.
Watch the interview below:
Republicans “trying to out-militarize” Obama
The Congressman declared that there was no way he would quit because he is the only candidate who wants to restore the Republican party to its founding principles of limited government.
“I am talking to a whole generation, which is expanding,” Paul said.
“When I can get 52,000 people out on a college campus as wildly enthusiastic to hear the message of liberty and freedom and less war and curtailing the Federal Reserve, there is no way I’m going to quit speaking out on this and there is no way I’m going to give up on the effort to get the Republicans back to their roots.”
“In some ways they say, ‘well why don’t you give up and this will help the Republican Party.’ The truth is I’m trying to save the Republican Party from themselves because they want perpetual wars,” Paul added.
“They don’t care about presidents who assassinate American citizens, they don’t care about searching our houses without a search warrant and these are the kind of things that people care about.
“I think Republicans have dug a hole for themselves because they’re trying to out-militarize the President, saying we should do more,” Paul said.
“Yet 75 percent of the American people have said we’ve had enough, it’s cost us too much money, it’s time to come home.”
When asked by Host Bob Schieffer if he would support Romney should he win the nomination, Paul responded: “I haven’t made that decision yet, I’m still campaigning.”
The Congressman also once again addressed the far flung notion that he could be invited to take on the role of vice president on a Romney ticket:
“I don’t see how that would happen. There’s too many disagreements … I have no common ground on economics.” Paul said.
Watch the interview below:
Trial: Priest joked about abusing 3 boys in week
By | Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Jurors in a landmark priest-abuse trial heard Monday about a priest-turned-camp prowler and another who allegedly bragged about having sex with three boys in one week.
Also Monday, two jurors were replaced by alternates, but a gag order prevents lawyer from discussing the reasons for the move.Monsignor William Lynn is on trial for child endangerment and conspiracy. Lynn, 61, is the first Roman Catholic church official in the U.S. charged for his handling of priest-abuse complaints. Prosecutors say he helped the church bury them in secret files, far from the prying eyes of investigators, civil attorneys and concerned Catholics.
In the day's most startling testimony, a detective read internal church memos about a priest who allegedly "joked about how hard it was to have sex with three boys in one week." His accuser also stated that the priest had a "rotation process" of boys spending time sleeping with him.Defense lawyers argue that Lynn tried to address the problem as secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004, but was blocked by the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and others in the Philadelphia archdiocese.
The testimony Monday also included a 1992 complaint about a different priest who allegedly molested boys at a church-owned camp three decades earlier.Several junior counselors complained in the early 1960s that the priest was on the prowl at night, molesting them in their tents. They said it was a well-known secret among teen counselors for several years.
The priest remained in ministry, working at three archdiocesan high schools and serving as assistant superintendent of Catholic schools through 2004. Confronted after a man complained to the archdiocese in 1992, the priest admitted to the "sin" of masturbation and said he had read up on that subject because so many people were mentioning it in the confessional.
Few victims or members of the public have been attending the trial in downtown Philadelphia, but retired Philadelphia detective Arthur Baselice III of Mantua, N.J., turned out Monday.
His 28-year-old son, Arthur Jr., died of a drug overdose in 2006, after his civil lawsuit against the church accusing his high school principal of molesting him was thrown out because of legal time limits. The former principal, a Franciscan friar, is in prison for stealing nearly $900,000 from the school and the Franciscans, some of which fed the younger Baselice's drug addiction, according to prosecutors.Prosecutors are detailing allegations made against nearly two dozen priests since 1948 to show that Lynn and other archdiocesan officials kept suspected predators in jobs around children.
On cross-examination Monday, defense lawyers Jeffrey Lindy and Thomas Bergstrom had detectives concede that Lynn promptly interviewed both complainants and accused priests, and sent the priests to a church-run hospital for mental health evaluations and treatment.
The man who wrote to the archdiocese in 1992 about the camp prowler was by then 44, a married father of five girls. His alleged molester was chaplain of a suburban Philadelphia girls' high school.
He remained there until 2004, when a church panel reviewing complaints in the wake of the national priest-abuse scandal found the allegations against him credible. The priest only then admitted molesting three boys, and explained earlier denials on the fact he had confessed and moved past it.
The archdiocese restricted his ministry — 40 years after the camp allegations first surfaced.
___
Associated Press writer JoAnn Loviglio contributed to this report.
Learn Where PA State Legislative Candidates Stand On Liberty Issues
Consider the following headlines from recently reported events:
- Police shut down lemonade stand run by two little girls
- SWAT team raids Amish farm for selling milk straight from the cow
- Federal Bureaucrats fine Missouri family $4 million for son’s sale of $4500 worth of rabbits
Government bureaucrats seem to have gone off the deep end while they blatantly ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Innocent citizens merely wanting to fly across the country are groped and irradiated by thugs with a badge. Elderly cancer patients are forced to remove adult diapers, and parents are required to submit their toddlers to invasive enhanced body searches.
The TSA, first under George Bush and continued by Barack Obama, treats the area between the ticket counter and the door to the airplane as a Constitution-free zone—your right to privacy and presumed innocence is of no concern to them.
It is imperative that we work to repeal the laws that bureaucrats are using to trample our rights.
That is why the Pennsylvania Campaign for Liberty is working on a Candidate Survey Program. Each candidate for the State legislature has received a survey of seven important questions—questions that will put candidates on the record on liberty issues.
Candidates were asked where they stand on:
- Real ID (also known as Dangerous ID)
- Red light cameras
- Constitutional Carry
- Nullifying ObamaCare
- No-knock warrants
- TSA pat downs
- State healthcare exchanges
As we work toward liberty, it is critical to have current and potential legislators on record concerning important issues. Therefore, it is vital that we receive responses from as many candidates as possible.
Some candidates don’t want to go on the record—they are using evasive maneuvers to avoid responding to our questions.
If the candidates in your area have not responded to our survey, please contact them and ask that they complete and submit the Campaign for Liberty Survey.
In Liberty,
Deb Wells
Interim State Coordinator
Pennsylvania Campaign for Liberty
P.S. Click here to learn where your candidates stand on liberty issues.
P.P.S. Campaign for Liberty does not support or endorse candidates for office. The goal of the Campaign for Liberty Survey is only for keeping candidates true to their word should they be elected. It should not be construed as an endorsement of any candidate.
You are encouraged to view the websites and statements of each candidate to make an informed decision on candidate positions.
Do Republicans really want to defeat Obama?
Photo: Wikimedia Commons Reawakening Liberty by Thomas Mullen
TAMPA, Fl., April 2, 2012 —The Republican Party has energized its base around the idea that Barack Obama must be defeated to save America from “socialism.” They won a majority in the House in 2010 by focusing on Obamacare. They claim that this election is a turning point. Obama must be defeated or America will be “fundamentally changed.”
There is only one problem. All of the candidates they are running will lose to Obama, with the exception of Ron Paul.
In order to win the general election, the Republicans need independents and Democrats. They also need a media narrative that shows a clear contrast between their candidate and Obama. They get all of this with Paul and none of it with Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.
During the 2010 elections, Republicans pulled off a rhetorical coup. They successfully labeled Obamacare as “socialism” while at the same time mobilizing millions of senior citizens against the program because it would hurt Medicare. Hats off to their spin doctors. It won’t be that easy this year. If they want to attack Obama on Obamacare, they can’t run a candidate who signed the same program into law in Massachusetts (Romney), who supported its individual mandate for twenty years (Gingrich), or who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit (Santorum).
Santorum hasn’t endorsed the individual mandate, but Obama can argue that he’s all for government healthcare and “spreading the wealth around” because of Medicare Part D. The Republican base might swallow Santorum’s rebuttals, but for the rest Obamacare gets neutralized.
In contrast, Ron Paul can hammer Obama from both directions. He can argue the traditional conservative position that Medicare shouldn’t exist at all, but that he has the only plan that won’t cut off current beneficiaries. He can offer something new by allowing young people to opt out of Medicare and finish with the rejoinder “as long as we don’t start new government programs, as you have done, President Obama.” Ron Paul wins that debate by knockout. The other candidates lose.
Republicans have a short memory. John McCain lost to Obama in 2008 because he was perceived as another George W. Bush. Bush was reviled by voters for nation-building in the Middle East, for spying on Americans, and for being too cozy with Wall Street. Obama campaigned against all of that, but once in office he’s been Bush III.
Mitt Romney said that he would have signed the last NDAA bill, empowering the president to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without due process. Santorum is on the record supporting the new power Obama has assumed to assassinate American citizens. Newt Gingrich says not only that the Patriot Act has to be strengthened, but that Americans must accept it for the rest of their lives. None of these candidates can attack Obama on civil liberties.
Ron Paul can. Voters can watch videos of Paul’s resistance to the Patriot Act before it was passed and review Paul’s numerous speeches, op-eds, and congressional votes against Bush’s policies. Only Ron Paul wants to repeal the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the controversial provisions of the NDAA. He can excoriate Obama as Bush III and convince independents and Democrats to vote for him.
Only Paul can attack Obama for filling up his cabinet with Wall Street insiders. Obviously, that argument won’t fly with Mitt Romney. Santorum and Gingrich have both been lobbyists out of public office. Obama will point that out. Paul has a long history of opposing corporatism and again adds something new, his oppositions to the Federal Reserve. Paul can point to the trillions in bailouts of foreign banks by the Fed and hammer Obama for not doing anything about it.
After running as a peace candidate and collecting a Nobel Prize, Obama has started new wars and expanded existing ones. He has deployed troops in Australia and may yet get more involved in Syria. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich cannot attack Obama on this. They have all eliminated that possibility with their unrelenting hawkishness during their campaigns.
Paul’s foreign policy is not only what got Obama elected in 2008; it is what got George W. Bush elected in 2000. Bush ran on a “humble foreign policy” and won. When he broke that promise, his party was routed in 2006 and 2008. Obama won on an anti-war platform in 2008. He broke that promise and his party lost big in 2010. Only Ron Paul can capitalize on this in 2012. He’s the only one proposing less war. He’s the only one that can cite a consistent anti-war record.
If nothing else, Republicans should be able to attack Obama on spending, but Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich can’t win this fight either. None of them propose any spending cuts. Their supposed “cuts” merely reduce proposed increases in federal spending in future years. Obama can argue that those proposals amount to endorsement of his spending now and he’d be correct.
Ron Paul already has already released his first year budget and it cuts $1 trillion. Combined with Obama’s proposed 2013 deficit, Paul can argue that electing Obama will cost Americans over $2 trillion dollars in one year. Now, that is a contrast that makes good headlines and will play with voters.
If defeating Obama is truly important, Republicans have to offer someone different. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum propose only to tweak Obama’s policies. Voters don’t want to hear that. They want to hear about fundamental change, remember? Only Ron Paul can pull it off in 2012.
It isn’t too late. New York, California, Texas and other states still haven’t held their primaries. If the Republican Party could catapult Gingrich and Santorum into the lead when their campaigns had no money and no ground game, they could do the same for Paul now. Wins in any of the big states can still result in a brokered convention which Paul can win. The Republican Party must learn from its mistakes during the Bush years or they will be defeated again. Only Ron Paul can beat Obama in 2012.
Ignore the smokescreen; you and I are funding abortion
As investigations by your National Pro-Life Alliance and other pro-life and law enforcement groups have shown, Planned Parenthood staff across the country have again and again:
*** Actively abetted minors in avoiding laws that require parental notification -- even if the minor girl is a likely victim of rape.
*** Concealed life or death information on the risks of surgical and drug abortions and the proven health consequences of both.
*** Covered up sex trafficking of young girls in violation of laws requiring them to advise authorities.
*** Kept such shoddy accounting practices that it is a lie for them to say that no taxpayer funds are used for abortion.
But that begs the question. Are the claims by Planned Parenthood true that their so-called "women's health centers" really service women's health needs?
Or are their claims merely a smoke screen for maximizing the money they spend to perform and promote abortions?
Looking at the evidence, it's clear to me that the second interpretation is true.
As you and other NPLA members know, Planned Parenthood gets your tax dollars both in direct government grants and as reimbursement for "costs" of abortion.
But they get even more of your tax money, supposedly for "other services."
But in case after case, evidence shows these other services are a sham.
For example, in Texas, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson has filed a whistleblower lawsuit, charging that the Houston area Planned Parenthood knowingly sent in some $6 million in false claims to Medicaid and covered up its actions.
The suit states the Houston area abortion facility sent in more than 87,000 reimbursement claims for services that were "false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible."
Secondly, in California, former Planned Parenthood financial officer, Victor Gonzalez, says his internal audit estimated Planned Parenthood overcharged California taxpayers $180 million since late 1990's in the Los Angeles area alone.
And these two examples are just the tip of the iceberg, as more whistleblowers continue to come out of the woodwork.
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how Planned Parenthood gets their hands on tax dollars.
Whenever taxpayer dollars flow to Planned Parenthood, you can be sure they will find a way to use them to subsidize their deadly abortion business.
That's why Planned Parenthood must not see a penny from taxpayers for any reason and why your continued support of NPLA efforts is so important.
And also why I hope you will help ratchet up the pressure to cut the taxpayer funding completely and crank up the heat in Congress to pass the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" to end ALL taxpayer funding for abortionists.
Please sign the petition to end taxpayer funding of abortion by clicking here.
With the politicians looking for votes this election year, there is no better time to remind them that we voters demand a complete end to taxpayer funding of abortion.
For Life,
Martin Fox, President
National Pro-Life Alliance
P.S. If you can, please chip in with a contribution by clicking here, because your National Pro-Life Alliance is entirely dependent on voluntary contributions to keep our vital programs running.
ELECTION 2012 Obama or Romney: The republic fails either way! Exclusive: Alan Keyes applies words of Christ to 'lesser of 2 evils' dilemma
by Alan KeyesThis saps credibility from the notion that there is any starkly fateful difference between GOP Republicans and Obama-faction Democrats. They are opposite wings of the same elitist faction, flapping in unison as socialism takes flight. … (“Is Republican infighting a bad thing?”)
As I anticipated, “the elitist machinations of the sham party system are predictably moving America toward another false choice between an avowed socialist Democrat and a prevaricating socialist Republican.” Marco Rubio’s endorsement of Mitt Romney kicks off an orchestrated wavelet of “influential” endorsements, signaling an end to the sham competition that culminated in a not very credible “dramatic face-off” between Romney and one of his 2008 cheerleaders, Rick Santorum. After a brief flash of truthfulness in which Santorum admitted that the “choice” between Romney and Obama is a falsehood liable to be fatal to American liberty, the former U.S. senator has dutifully retracted it. Not only will he break out his briefly discarded Romney-for-President pompoms on cue, he manfully allows as how it would be his patriotic duty to consider serving as Romney’s VP if asked to do so.
In 2008 I refused to support John McCain and rejected the specious argument that made it imperative to support the”lesser of evils.” Christ made it unequivocally clear that it is always imperative to apply the standard of God. (“Be ye perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect.”) Given the inescapable reality of human imperfection, is this just an unrealistic demand? To say so is to reject the offer of God’s forgiveness that Christ represents, for though we all fall short of the glory, by accepting Christ we open ourselves to the one who exists to make up the shortfall. By admonishing us to hold fast to the perfect standard of God, Christ encourages us to act in a way that admits our utter dependence upon God, rather than giving into the false belief that some self-reliant calculus of evil can substitute for trusting only in Him.
The “lesser evil” approach guarantees the triumph of wrong. So in choosing between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama we are like the cornered target of the hit man who says, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” The fatal outcome is inevitable in either case. Obama’s way takes us to domineering socialism along a path that moves more openly and harshly against right, conscience and property. Romney’s way takes us to domineering socialism along a path that reserves the harsher methods, preferring to use deception and prevarication so that we go more gently into the night.
The Obama way challenges the courage of Americans, and if that courage is lacking, it will succeed more quickly. But if courage is not lacking, Obama’s way entails much greater risk of resistance and failure in the short term. The Romney way is slower, but more surely and easily achieves the goal. It exploits the fear of those Americans whose attachment to the comfortable enjoyment of material goods outweighs their concern for abstract moral and spiritual goods such as God-endowed rights and decent liberty. Increase tyranny by smaller steps, and the petulant desire to live undisturbed in a shiny wilderness of toys and little joys will war against the moral indignation that rises as right and conscience are sacrificed, along with the decent sense of pride enjoyed by a people willing to accept individual responsibility for the common good.
Along either path, the American republic fails. Either way, the Providential opportunity to vindicate mankind’s capacity for self-government is lost. Either way, the brief greatness of the United States disappears from history.
Right now a film of futuristic fiction predicated upon the dissolution of the United States is breaking records at the box office. Once the stuff of cult films, this bleak vision is now titillating the masses. Is “Hunger Games” also preparing the subconscious mind of rising generations to see themselves in a future where the USA (and the vision of God-endowed human dignity it was founded upon) has ceased to exist?
Why Ron Paul?
Voddie Baucham, Grace Family Baptist Church
The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative. Some vowed never to follow, or support my ministry any further, while others simply communicated their dismay. Still others, like today's questioner, just asked honest questions. As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.
Let me say ahead of time that I do not believe that politics will save America. Nor do I believe there are any perfect candidates. There never have been, and there never will be. Moreover, it is not my goal to answer every objection to the Paul candidacy as I know that there are those who, for various reasons, will not be persuaded, and more importantly, that’s not my job. My goal here is to offer insight in to my own reasoning as I wade through another political season and make a personal choice.
My desire is not to see a president who will usurp the authority, responsibilities, or privileges of the Church. However, I do not wish to see those things hindered either. I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.
Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” wrote Paul on his Web site.[5] I have also had the privilege of talking with both him, and one of his five children about his faith and how it influences his policy positions.
Nevertheless, the more important aspect is the fact that this Southern Baptist (raised Lutheran) is a regular church attender. What would motivate a man to attend church, but not beat a drum about it in an effort to win over evangelicals in an age when political figures play at Christianity (while living totally contradictory lives, and holding heterodox beliefs) in order to assuage the fears of the Christian Right? Having met and talked to Dr. Paul, I would say it is authenticity, and humility more than anything else. He wants “to avoid any appearance of exploiting [his faith] for political gain.”[6]
This is actually an important quality in a President. I don’t want a man in the White House making decisions based on what “feels” right. I’m not looking for a conscientious King; I want a Chief Executive. I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that. Especially in several crucial areas facing our Republic, like money, war, States’ Rights, and foreign policy, for example.
Congressman Paul is also the only candidate who has a budget that will cut a TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in year one.[7] He is the only candidate who has committed to defund and eliminate expensive, unconstitutional agencies. This is crucial for a country headed for an economic cliff. Our debt is larger than our GDP and we simply must address it NOW (Luke 14:28)! This is arguably the most important issue we face, and while others want to tinker with the status quo, Dr. Paul wants to do the hard thing; the right thing; the biblical thing; the constitutional thing.
There is a reason Dr. Paul has received more support from members of the military than all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) COMBINED! The top three employers of Ron Paul’s donors are the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively. Dr. Paul will not use our military to hunt down and overthrow heads of state without Congressional authority (i.e., Libya), kill American citizens without warrant,[9] detain citizens indefinitely without benefit of a trial,[10] or chase warlords in central Africa.[11] When it comes to war, Dr. Paul understands that, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.” (Proverbs 26:17)
The President is not “Pastor in Chief.” It is not the President’s job (or the job of the Federal Government) to set such policies. The “War on Drugs,” for example, has been a monumental, unconstitutional, fiscal failure (to the tune of more than $3 BILLION)![12] The Federal Government must be held within the confines of its enumerated powers. This is important for Christians because we will not always have people in the White House with whom we agree (in fact, politicians will always let us down). What happens when we send a man to the White House with the express purpose of “changing the moral standards” of America in our favor, then, down the line we have a president who uses the same un-cheked powers to promote moral standards with which we disagree? How’s that workin’ for ya’?
But what about the moral issues to which we, as Christians, must speak? First, we must speak to them at the local level. I have no right to look to Washington, D.C. for remedies when I am not preaching on Mars Hill at every opportunity. The Roe v. Wade, for example, started in Texas; not D.C.. Furthermore, there is not a single institution more prolific in the spread of moral decay than the government education system, and Ron Paul is the only man who plans to get the federal government out of that business by ending the (unconstitutional) Department of Education IMMEDIATELY (Luke 6:40).
Beyond that, if there are issues we wish to address on a federal level, we have a federal remedy, and it is not the election of a President; it is the amendment process. This is less favorable to those who do not wish to do the hard work of changing hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. However, the alternative is a quasi-monarchy (or oligarchy) that changes with the wind, and a view of the presidency that is both unbiblical and unconstitutional.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel. It is our current foreign policy that does not support Israel! However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.
But there’s a more important question: “What does it mean to “support” Israel?” Does it mean that Israel remains God’s “Chosen People,” and we must stand with them in anticipation of the coming Armageddon? Is the President to act as “Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and “Supreme Defender of Israel”? Or are we simply to make sure the foreign aid dollars don’t stop flowing? Here are a few things I took into to consideration in evaluating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.
Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.
______________________________________________________________________________
For a better understanding of Voddie's view of Christians and Politics: Listen to this sermon series on Romans 13.
For more information on the role of the Bible in Politics, purchase this book by Wayne Grudem
_______________________________________________________________________________
[1] The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816].
[2] The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol. 8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120.
[3] Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh, J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from "A Sermon Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace."
[4] I realize that President Obama professes Christianity. However, his theology, as well as the theology of the church he attended for more than twenty years is heterodox (committed to neo-marxist, Black Liberation Theology. There is little in his worldview that commends his profession of faith.
[5] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o
[9] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml
[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
[11] http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00014859.html
[12] http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml
[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o
"Voddie, because I have a great respect for you and your opinion I would really like to know why you are voting for Ron Paul ? I have not liked some of the things I have heard him say and I am wondering if I missed something?" -Pamela Wolfe (via Facebook Fan Page)
Since posting a passing comment on my Facebook fan page about Ron Paul, I have been inundated with questions and concerns about my support of the Texas Congressman in the current Republican Primary race. In one of my many political posts (frequently, I post videos, news articles, etc., in an effort to show the importance and influence of worldview), I simply stated that I voted for Dr. Paul in the last election, and planned to vote for him again.The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative. Some vowed never to follow, or support my ministry any further, while others simply communicated their dismay. Still others, like today's questioner, just asked honest questions. As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.
Let me say ahead of time that I do not believe that politics will save America. Nor do I believe there are any perfect candidates. There never have been, and there never will be. Moreover, it is not my goal to answer every objection to the Paul candidacy as I know that there are those who, for various reasons, will not be persuaded, and more importantly, that’s not my job. My goal here is to offer insight in to my own reasoning as I wade through another political season and make a personal choice.
I. Ron Paul is a Christian Conservative
While I am not looking for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” it is important to me that the man for whom I cast my vote be a Christian, if at all possible. And though I recognize that there is not always a clear Christian choice (i.e., the 2008 election), I agree with Chief Justice John Jay who wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."[1] For indeed, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.”[2] John Witherspoon concurs: “Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to [public office] are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.”[3] I think we are seeing this on display right now.[4]My desire is not to see a president who will usurp the authority, responsibilities, or privileges of the Church. However, I do not wish to see those things hindered either. I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.
Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” wrote Paul on his Web site.[5] I have also had the privilege of talking with both him, and one of his five children about his faith and how it influences his policy positions.
Nevertheless, the more important aspect is the fact that this Southern Baptist (raised Lutheran) is a regular church attender. What would motivate a man to attend church, but not beat a drum about it in an effort to win over evangelicals in an age when political figures play at Christianity (while living totally contradictory lives, and holding heterodox beliefs) in order to assuage the fears of the Christian Right? Having met and talked to Dr. Paul, I would say it is authenticity, and humility more than anything else. He wants “to avoid any appearance of exploiting [his faith] for political gain.”[6]
II. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative
Not only is Ron Paul a Christian Conservative; he is also a Constitutional Conservative. He holds himself accountable to the Constitution of the United States, even when it means he has to vote against legislation that may be otherwise beneficial. This has cost him on numerous occasions as people use the “Ron Paul voted against so-and-so” tactic to paint a caricature of him and play “gotcha” politics.This is actually an important quality in a President. I don’t want a man in the White House making decisions based on what “feels” right. I’m not looking for a conscientious King; I want a Chief Executive. I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that. Especially in several crucial areas facing our Republic, like money, war, States’ Rights, and foreign policy, for example.
Constitutional Money
I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of money. He is the only candidate consistently to confront the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank), and address the issue of fiat currency (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11), which debases the dollar, manipulates business cycles, creates inflation, and always benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. And he talks about the issue in just those terms.Congressman Paul is also the only candidate who has a budget that will cut a TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in year one.[7] He is the only candidate who has committed to defund and eliminate expensive, unconstitutional agencies. This is crucial for a country headed for an economic cliff. Our debt is larger than our GDP and we simply must address it NOW (Luke 14:28)! This is arguably the most important issue we face, and while others want to tinker with the status quo, Dr. Paul wants to do the hard thing; the right thing; the biblical thing; the constitutional thing.
Constitutional War
I support Ron Paul because he is a military veteran (yup... he refuses to beat that drum too, which is why you may not have known that little tidbit). And though I do not believe it is necessary for a man to have served in the military for him to serve as President, the fact that Congressman Paul knows and hates war lends credibility to his desire and commitment to ending the wars and bringing our troops home. Moreover, he has a constitutional understanding of war (only Congress can send us to war), and a Christian commitment to historic Just War Theory (rooted in the Sixth Commandment... HIS WORDS).[8] He, unlike other candidates, can be counted on not to commit to acts of war without congressional authority (i.e., unilaterally deciding to bomb a sovereign nation if they advance their weapons technology in a region several thousand miles away from the U.S., under the watchful eye of a nation with over 300 nukes who can stop them in a heartbeat... but I digress).There is a reason Dr. Paul has received more support from members of the military than all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) COMBINED! The top three employers of Ron Paul’s donors are the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively. Dr. Paul will not use our military to hunt down and overthrow heads of state without Congressional authority (i.e., Libya), kill American citizens without warrant,[9] detain citizens indefinitely without benefit of a trial,[10] or chase warlords in central Africa.[11] When it comes to war, Dr. Paul understands that, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.” (Proverbs 26:17)
Constitutional States’ Rights
I support Ron Paul because he not only understands, but believes in the Tenth Amendment. I know many Christians have been scared off by the “Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, gay marriage, and abortion” rhetoric. However, looking beyond the rhetoric reveals Paul’s true constitutional conservatism (and biblical understanding of jurisdiction). He has personal convictions, but those will not be allowed to steer him away from his constitutional oath. The presidency, and the Federal Government have limits.The President is not “Pastor in Chief.” It is not the President’s job (or the job of the Federal Government) to set such policies. The “War on Drugs,” for example, has been a monumental, unconstitutional, fiscal failure (to the tune of more than $3 BILLION)![12] The Federal Government must be held within the confines of its enumerated powers. This is important for Christians because we will not always have people in the White House with whom we agree (in fact, politicians will always let us down). What happens when we send a man to the White House with the express purpose of “changing the moral standards” of America in our favor, then, down the line we have a president who uses the same un-cheked powers to promote moral standards with which we disagree? How’s that workin’ for ya’?
But what about the moral issues to which we, as Christians, must speak? First, we must speak to them at the local level. I have no right to look to Washington, D.C. for remedies when I am not preaching on Mars Hill at every opportunity. The Roe v. Wade, for example, started in Texas; not D.C.. Furthermore, there is not a single institution more prolific in the spread of moral decay than the government education system, and Ron Paul is the only man who plans to get the federal government out of that business by ending the (unconstitutional) Department of Education IMMEDIATELY (Luke 6:40).
Beyond that, if there are issues we wish to address on a federal level, we have a federal remedy, and it is not the election of a President; it is the amendment process. This is less favorable to those who do not wish to do the hard work of changing hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. However, the alternative is a quasi-monarchy (or oligarchy) that changes with the wind, and a view of the presidency that is both unbiblical and unconstitutional.
Constitutional Foreign Policy
I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of foreign policy. Ironically, our foreign policy has been so unconstitutional for so long that many people recoil at the idea of getting it back in line. Moreover, the semantic game Paul’s opponents play (using “isolationism” as opposed to “non-intervention” to define his position) doesn’t help. For most Christians, this is where they believe I’ve left the reservation. They may not say, “We have to be the world’s police force,” but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Do you know his position on Israel?” “Surely you can’t support a man who doesn’t support Israel!”Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel. It is our current foreign policy that does not support Israel! However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.
But there’s a more important question: “What does it mean to “support” Israel?” Does it mean that Israel remains God’s “Chosen People,” and we must stand with them in anticipation of the coming Armageddon? Is the President to act as “Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and “Supreme Defender of Israel”? Or are we simply to make sure the foreign aid dollars don’t stop flowing? Here are a few things I took into to consideration in evaluating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.
- Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East... BY A LONG SHOT! In fact, Israel could potentially defeat all the other military powers in the Middle East simultaneously if they had to.
- We not only give money to Israel; we give money to their enemies as well. That is not supporting Israel! That is using money to buy influence in a region thousands of miles away from us in the name of oil, when we happen to have the largest repository of oil on planet earth right here in the US, but refuse to go and get it (in the name of Earth-worshipping environmentalism)!
- Israel is a sovereign nation, and we have no right to treat her like a child. Our foreign aid has been a tool used to influence Israel’s domestic policy for far too long. If we are their friends, we should allow them to exercise their sovereignty without our interference, and certainly without our condemnation. Who do we think we are? No, I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters who think a country who supports Israel’s enemies, interferes with Israel’s domestic policy, condemn’s Israel in efforts to keep ties with oil-rich countries in the region, and helps to destabilize and radicalize one of Israel’s historic foes lurking on her southern boarder is engaging in a foreign policy that supports Israel.
III. Ron Paul is a Consistent Conservative
Finally, I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened;[13] and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.
______________________________________________________________________________
For a better understanding of Voddie's view of Christians and Politics: Listen to this sermon series on Romans 13.
For more information on the role of the Bible in Politics, purchase this book by Wayne Grudem
_______________________________________________________________________________
[1] The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816].
[2] The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol. 8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120.
[3] Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh, J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from "A Sermon Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace."
[4] I realize that President Obama professes Christianity. However, his theology, as well as the theology of the church he attended for more than twenty years is heterodox (committed to neo-marxist, Black Liberation Theology. There is little in his worldview that commends his profession of faith.
[5] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o
[9] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml
[10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
[11] http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00014859.html
[12] http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml
[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)