Pat Robertson Could Learn a Thing or Two from Chuck Baldwin

In light of Pat Robertson's indefensible endorsement of Rudy Giuliani yesterday, I'm posting a column by Pastor Chuck Baldwin regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul. Pastor Baldwin pleads with his fellow ministers not to lend their support to phony conservatives (not to make deals with the devil, so to speak), but to take a long, hard look at supporting Ron Paul.

____________________________

AN APPEAL TO MY FELLOW PASTORS
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.

Consider how Congressman Paul's message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. "I've been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I'm leaning real strong toward Ron Paul." Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, "Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we'd been let down by Bush." As for Iraq, he said, "I don't think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture." He said he now feels "humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven't done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul's kind of integrity." [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]

Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, "As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . ."

Ron Paul doesn't recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn't need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.

This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul's priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.

Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is "anti-family." Such people mean well but are confused.

America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance--at the local level--to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.

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

Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.

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

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

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

The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.

The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.

You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one "in whom we live and move and have our being." Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul--an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense--opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.

Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

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

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

One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.

Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul's non-interventionist position above all others.

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

Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate? Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website:

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Source: NewsWithViews.com

Robertson Endorses Giuliani

Pat Robertson has announced he will be backing RINO Rudy Giuliani. That's right, the self-anointed mouthpiece of what remains of the once powerful Religious Right has endorsed an pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-illegal immigration social progressive.

Robertson was willing to overlook the liberal positions of the 3-times divorced lapsed Catholic from New York because of Rudy's "ability" to lead the Nation in the "War on Terror." Again, I must ask the question- exactly what is it in Giuliani's past that makes one think he would be effective in fighting terrorism? His horrible decision to move the Emergency Command Center into the World Trade Center after the first bombing? or was it his refusal to supply emergency personnel with communications gear that actually worked like it was supposed to? or maybe it was his backing of a corrupt womanizing Police Commissioner to head the Department of Homeland Security- whose kids of whom Rudy just happened to be their godfather?

These morons all seem to think that somehow, being mayor of a city during a terrorist attack qualifies Giuliani to lead the "War on Terror" and make America "safe." (Note: I'm not taking a position here as to whether 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack or not- I am simply putting the conventional view out there, since that view is central to Giuliani's campaign)

Robertson invoked the Reagan doctrine- my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. If Rudy is only Pat's "20%" enemy, then Pat isn't much of a conservative- or a Christian, for that matter. But then again, we already knew this about Pat.

In the grand scheme of things, this endorsement means very little. Robertson's influence has been fading for years, and may give Giuliani a 1 or 2 point bump- but I doubt it will have even that effect.

The Top 100 Conservatives?

It's pretty obvious the word "conservative" means something different to the editors at the London Telegraph than it does to me. As I read through the list, it was readily apparent that they recognize no distinction between real conservatives and neocons- and, as evidenced by their choice as the most influential "conservative" in the United States, they don't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative, either.

Their choice as the most influential conservative? Rudy Giuliani. That's right, a pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control liberal is the most influential American conservative.

The failure to distinguish notwithstanding, the ratings themselves are laughable. I don't like Bill O'Reilly, but having him at #82 and Glenn Beck at #18 is patently absurd. Ron Paul made the list at #96, with Chuck Norris checking in 25 spots ahead of the Congressman.

The liberal list is a little more feasible, but George Soros at 15 is insane. Through his MoveOn.org and other progressive/socialist organizations, Soros basically controls the Democratic Party. At least they put Ah-nold on this list- although I'm not sure why Lieberman is listed among the Conservatives.

For a good laugh, you can see both lists in full here.

Firefighters for Giuliani?

Not in New York they're not. Members of the FDNY know firsthand that Rudy is a fraud when it comes to his "leadership" in the aftermath of 9/11. If you are at all thinking of voting for Giuliani, you need to visit rudy-urbanlegend.com and listen to the firefighters and law enforcement officers attest to Rudy's "leadership."

2 GOP Candidates Show Some Guts

During the Republican duh-bate yesterday, Representatives Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo showed testicular fortitude in publically stating that they wouldn't support the GOP nominee if they didn't agree with him philosophically. In doing so, both set themselves apart from the other contenders by basically stating what so many of us believe- principles must trump party loyalty.

Giuliani is a social progressive; Romney may as well change his name to Eggo; Thompson has all the charisma of Admiral Stockdale, and we're still not sure where he stands on anything; and McCain, Huckabee and Brownback apparently don't think that having 20% of the Mexican population living in the United States is enough. Paul and Tacredo are right about those guys- I couldn't in good conscience support any of them, either.

To paraphrase Chuck Baldwin, having to choose between Rudy and Romney, or Thompson and McCain, or any combination of those would be roughly akin to having to choose between Nero and Caligula.

Tancredo has been the attack dog against illegal immigration, while Paul has spoken long and loud against the Neocon war in Iraq. They've shown guts in the past, and showed them again yesterday. Good job, guys.
_____________________________________________

From The Hill:

Paul and Tancredo hint at not supporting GOP nominee
By Klaus Marre
October 09, 2007

Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) made it clear Tuesday that they are not inclined to support the GOP nominee for president if that candidate is not in line with their views.

Asked about it during the debate of Republican presidential candidates in Michigan, Paul said right now he would not commit to support the party’s nominee.

“Not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home,” Paul said, to which Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) answered “You don’t want me then, pal.”

Paul also said he would not support a GOP candidate who is unwilling to curb spending in Washington.

“I’m not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes,” Paul said. “I mean, we’ve lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats’ foreign policy.”

Tancredo, a staunch supporter of tight border security, also did not commit to supporting the GOP candidate.

“I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils,” he said. “I really don’t intend to do that again.

I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principled flag carrier for the Republican Party. But if that is not the case, no, then I will not support them.”

Anger at Giuliani 9/11 Fundraiser

What a jackass Giuliani is. $9.11? How crass can one be? That is insulting, regardless of who you think was behind 9/11.

He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, yet the media claims he is ahead in almost all the GOP preference polls. That either shows how low the Republican Party has sank, or how ignorant the media is- I personally think it's a combination of both. How anyone can look at his record and his positions and even consider voting for him is beyond reason.

I wonder why this hasn't been hammered a lot in the American press as of yet.

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

From the BBC:

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has been criticised over a fundraising party at which participants are being urged to donate $9.11.
The International Association of Fire Fighters accuses him of exploiting the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

Mr Giuliani rose to national prominence as New York's mayor on 9/11.

The Giuliani campaign says it did not plan the event, which is due to take place on Wednesday evening in California at the home of a supporter.

Nevertheless, the firefighters association said the stated theme of the fundraiser - "$9.11 for Rudy" was in poor taste.

"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero," said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF president.

Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd described the fundraiser's theme as "unconscionable, shameless and sickening."

Responsibility

A Giuliani campaign spokesman said the idea was selected without the campaign's knowledge.

But the host of the party, Abraham Soefer, also said the theme was not his responsibility, and referred other questions to Mr Giuliani's campaign team, the Associated Press reports.

The event is one of several Giuliani house party fundraisers across the US on Wednesday.

Mr Giuliani is seen as one of the frontrunners in the race for the Republican nomination.

But the BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says that Mr Giuliani's appeal as the man who led New York through the terrorist attacks is occasionally over-emphasised in his campaign.

This fundraiser looks like a big blunder, our correspondent adds.