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

Ron Paul Surging in the Polls Among Moderates

Double-digit support in NH, 8% in Michigan... ahead of Thompson and Huckabee in both, ahead of Romney in Michigan. Large undecideds in both samples, so there's still opportunity to gain on McCain and Romney in NH, and an even better chance to catch Giuliani and McCain in MI.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Thompson is going to crash and burn as much as I think he will in the MSNBC debate this afternoon. I'm not a big fan of Chris Matthews, but I'm hoping he lays into Thompson and the other "top tier" candidates.
_________________________________________________________________
From USAElectionPolls.com

Ron Paul Surging in the Polls Among Moderates

There is more great news for the Ron Paul campaign, not just the money he raised in the third quarter but also that this is starting to translate into real life support. Among moderates in New Hampshire, Ron Paul is in the double digits. The sample size of moderates in this poll is only 203 but is as high as some of the University polls that are reported widely in the media.

John McCain 26%
Mitt Romney 17%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Ron Paul 10%
Fred Thompson 5%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Unsure 21%
Source

In Michigan, out of a sample size of 307, Ron Paul is sitting at 8% among moderates.

John McCain 20%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Ron Paul 8%
Mitt Romney 6%
Fred Thompson 5%
Mike Huckabee 5%
Sam Brownback 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Unsure 38%
Source

This is very promising news for Ron Paul because the moderates tend to be the most Undecided of all the voters. New Hampshire (21%), Michigan (39%) so as those voters learn of Ron Paul, more gains are expected. The other item to note is that Independents in New Hampshire are allowed to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries if they wish. Thus, Ron Paul will be gaining in the polls shortly.

Ron Paul's Fundraising Success Is Translating Into Surging Poll Numbers Among Moderates

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate for President that is anti-war -- something that gets him favor among Liberals and Moderates. And according to the latest polls in Michigan and New Hampshire, he is polling at 8% and 10% respectively among moderates in those states.

Moderates tend to be highly Undecided at this stage of the election and USAElectionPolls.com believes that as soon as Paul's name recognition grows coupled with these voters settling on a candidate, Ron Paul should see more signs of improvement.

According to USAElectionPolls.com, leaving out Moderates that would vote in the Primaries happens far too often. "Some pollsters think that it is okay to leave off moderates because they do not fit in line with their label 'Likely Republican Voter' but it does a disservice to candidates that appeal to them like a Ron Paul. We have been making claims that Ron Paul is really higher in the polls since May 2007 and this is just one of those biases."

Are you a Murdering Rapist in the Country Illegally?

Never fear, George Bush and the Neocons at the White House have got your back. In fact, they'll argue on your behalf before the US Supreme Court!

Apparently, this White House has somewhat of a soft spot for rapists and murderers. Dog Chapman goes to Mexico to apprehend a fugitive rapist and murderer who had fled American justice- and for his troubles, the Justice Department threw the Bounty Hunter in jail and sought to extradite him to Mexico. Now the same Bush Administration will stand before the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court and argue that the convictions of 51 rapists and murderers on Death Row (all of whom are illegal aliens) should be overturned, and those 51 subhumans should be sent back to Mexico to stand trial.

The Neocons are following the marching orders of the World Court on this one. It's interesting to see how they pick and choose which World Court mandates they choose to follow. If it deals with torture, it's ignored; if it deals with illegals, they'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce it.

Fact is, we should have nothing to do with the World Court. No foreign court must hold sway over our sovereignty, and international "law" cannot trump the US Constitution. Apparently, the GOP and Democrats don't think the same way- but the Constitution Party does.

From the Constitution Party Platform:

The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.

To this end, we shall:
steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;

call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;

bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and

propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.


It's not just the World Court- it's the entire web of globalist organizations and trade deals that we must get away from- the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, Law of the Sea Treaty, GATT, WTO, etc., etc., etc. They are all threats to American soveriegnty and enemies of the Constitution.

Ron Paul has said "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." I wholeheartedly agree with him, and so would the Founding Fathers. How about you?
___________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer
International court seeks to block death penalty in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 8, 2007
11:28 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday in which the Bush administration will seek to overturn the death penalty of a convicted rapist-murderer at the behest of the International Court of Justice.

Jose Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

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

The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice found Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

That, according to the Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

"We find ourselves in an unusual position," Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the Houston Chronicle. "Texas is not regularly litigating against the United States. But sadly enough, the United States will appear alongside Medellin at the argument."

Medellin v. Texas will be argued Wednesday and could determine the fate of Medellin and 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.

The court is expected to produce a ruling clarifying which powers reside with the president, Congress and courts, which powers belong to the federal government versus the states, and what the relationship is between international and domestic law.

The Bush administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.

The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.

A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.

The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.

The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.

Medellin appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear his case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, will argue this week that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the World Court's decision.

The Bush administration, now siding with Medellin and Mexico, will try to help Donovan's team convince the justices that the Texas court is undermining the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy.

Cruz, who will argue the case for Texas, called Bush's unprecedented attempt to issue orders to the judicial branch – and the state courts in particular – "breathtaking."

"It is emphatically not the province of the president to say what the law is," he told the Houston Chronicle. "If this president's assertion of authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the books?"

Meanwhile, Randy and Sandra Ertman, the parents of one of Medellin's victims, also have weighed in. In a court brief filed on their behalf by the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, the Ertmans argue that their 14-year-old daughter's rights, and the rights of other victims, will be given short shrift if the justices further delay the "already long-overdue execution of this well-deserved sentence."

"This case has produced much lofty discussion about international law and the separation of powers. We must not forget, though, that this case is about a real crime against real people," they wrote. "Enough is enough."