They Want to Inject My Kids With What?

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -John Philpot Curran - 1790

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

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.

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):

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

->..->

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

February 27, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.

The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.

For example, Jerry Falwell's widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled "Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates." A total of ten Republicans made the Journal's list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell's list. Why is this? Why do evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?

Ron Paul received his Bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air National Guard.

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman's true conservative record out there.

Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced 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, "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 evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)

In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

Currently, 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).

Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell's Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.

For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative's conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?

The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today's evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.

Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.

Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich "a true American statesman." McCain is called "pro-life." Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don't be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain's strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, "Gov. Romney . . . shares our values." Of Giuliani, NLJ states, "On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives."

However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.

Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to "pick a winner." Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don't expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.

However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America's evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.

As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush "one of us," they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.

Will Ron Paul Be the Candidate of the Christian Right?

From: Lewrockwell.com - by Laurence M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance

DIGG THIS

In the typical presidential election, conservative Christians who have some understanding of the benefits of liberty and limited government and don't blindly follow the Republican Party do one of three things: they don't vote, they "waste" their vote on a third party, or else they hold their nose, close their eyes, stop their ears, and fight a gag reflex as they vote for the Republican candidate because they consider him to be the lesser of two evils. But most of these Christians have short memories, for when the lesser evil turns out to be just as evil as the greater evil, or sometimes even worse, they generally repeat the process all over again.

The newest individual to announce that he is seeking the Republican nomination for president is Ron Paul. He formally declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on March 12, 2007, when he appeared as a guest on C-SPAN.

Ron Paul is a veteran. He is a physician. He currently represents the 14^th district in Texas (south of Houston) in the U.S. House of Representatives, a seat which he has held since 1997. He previously represented Texas's 22^nd district in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985. Dr. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. He is the former honorary chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on The New American magazine's "Conservative Index." He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.

But will he be the candidate of the Christian Right? By the Christian Right's own criteria, their candidate ought to be Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a man of faith. He is a Protestant Christian and a regular churchgoer.

Ron Paul is pro-life. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Dr. Paul is not just an opponent of partial-birth abortion; he is an opponent of abortion itself. He is also opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Ron Paul is a believer in family values. Unlike many Christian "leaders" and Republican politicians who have admitted to adulterous affairs and/or been married multiple times, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years. He and his wife have been blessed with five children and seventeen grandchildren.

Ron Paul is opposed to same-sex marriage. Although he doesn't want to strip homosexuals of their civil rights, he has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

Ron Paul is a patriot. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1967. He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance.

Ron Paul is opposed to unrestricted immigration. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English.

Ron Paul is opposed to gun control. Not only does he believe that gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, he also thinks it's a myth that gun control reduces crime. Representative Paul introduced legislation in Congress that would have repealed waiting periods and instant background checks.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. Congressman Paul was recently recognized, for the tenth year in a row, as a "Taxpayer's Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union.

Ron Paul is opposed to the United Nations. He has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul believes that the UN is rife with corruption. It serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Instead of being reformed, the UN needs to be renounced. Dr. Paul is against any kind of world government or new world order.

Ron Paul is the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. He believes in absolute religious and political liberty for all Americans. He strongly supports private property rights. He believes that government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

But even though he appears to live up to the usual criteria of the Christian Right, the question still remains: Will Ron Paul be the candidate of the Christian Right?

As a Christian, I admire Dr. Paul's principled stand on many issues, but I don't believe the leadership of the Christian Right will embrace him. I think they love centralization more than federalism. I think they love political power more than liberty. I think they love war more than peace. I think they love politicians more than principles. I think they love faith-based socialism more than the free market. And I think they love the state more than God Almighty.

April 26, 2007

Independence Now And Forever

Adams went on to say, "You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not."

Indeed, the signers of America's Declaration of Independence endured the sacrifice of toil and blood. Pertaining to the lives of the signers, David Limbaugh writes, "Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his thirteen children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned."

Yes, America's Declaration of Independence, which is our nation's birth certificate, was purchased at a very high price. Rightly did its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, invoke God's name no less than four times in the Declaration. Without God, our struggle for independence and freedom would have surely failed!

Jefferson, along with the vast majority of America's founders, knew that freedom was first the gift of God, not the accomplishment of men. He further understood that man's law must be subordinate to the natural laws of God.

Therefore, with an appeal to Heaven for the "rectitude of [their] intentions," America's Founding Fathers courageously forged a document that would put their own lives at risk, but would also change the course of history.

The question now is, "How long can we maintain our nation's independence?" The forces of global government seem to dominate both major parties in Washington, D.C., most corporate boardrooms, and most newsrooms (including the Fox News Channel).

In fact, hemispheric or regional government never had a more powerful and committed ally than President George W. Bush. Mark my words, if and when America loses its independence, it will have been G.W. Bush that led the way in making it happen. I will even be so bold as to say that G.W. Bush is the worst enemy American independence has had since old King George III of England!

Even as I write, Bush is pushing forward with his intentions to merge the United States into a trilateral government with Mexico and Canada. This is why he lobbied so intently for the just-defeated amnesty bill for illegal aliens. To George W. Bush, there is no such thing as an illegal alien, because he has already agreed to unite the three countries into one.

If the United States is going to maintain its independence and freedom much beyond the year 2010 (the year Bush's new North American Union is scheduled to be in place), it will only be because millions of freedom-loving Americans are willing to fight for it.

Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. Daniel Webster gave the eulogy for both men on August 2. Included in his remarks on that notable day were these words: "It [the Declaration of Independence] is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and independence forever."

To Webster's words, I say a hearty AMEN! I promise no loyalty to the North American Union, to the United Nations, or to any other brand of global government. When the day comes that I am required to submit to any form of global authority, I will be an outlaw! There is no freedom without independence, and there is no independence without eternal vigilance. To my dying breath I will say with Daniel Webster, "Independence now, and independence forever!"

Recapturing the Spirit of Independence

Ron Paul - July 2, 2007

This week Americans will gather around the grill, attend parades and watch fireworks displays, all in the celebration of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. At the same time, we will have thousands of bureaucrats, troops and agents stationed in countries across the globe being paid by American tax dollars.

On the anniversary of our declaring our own independence from the British, it is certainly appropriate that we reflect on the nature and spirit of independent nationhood. While our founding fathers were individual men in a historically unique situation, they posited that the principles upon which they rested our national independence were timeless.

I believe there is no way to square our nation's traditions and reverence for independence with the globalist policies these elites are currently pursuing. The American concept of independent nationhood inscribed in our Declaration cannot be maintained if we are going to pursue a policy that undermines the independence of other nations. National independence is an idea, and the erosion of the independence of other nations only serves to erode that idea.

At the same time, if we allow the erosion of that idea, by ignoring it in certain instances, we will be contributing to its erosion in all times and nations, even our own. In this way our nation's independence is linked with the independence of all nations. The sooner we realize this truth, and enact a foreign policy that is consistent with it, the sooner we will be able to recapture the spirit of independence.

In addition, as our founding fathers understood, the idea of national independence is inseparable from that of constitutional republicanism. Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire. Recognizing these same protections is also the very best way to eliminate the need for civil wars and the violence of civil strife.

Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation's birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the sp