Politics 101 – the Candidate

In response to many inquiries regarding who the Constitution Party is supporting for president in 2012, the answer is simple. We will nominate our candidate at our national convention, as do all the other parties, and we will support our candidate. We do not know who that candidate will be, although there are a couple of names already in contention and discussion.

For those who have not figured it out, Ron Paul has chosen to run as a Republican, not as a candidate of the Libertarian Party, nor as a candidate of the Constitution Party. As a Republican, we cannot vote for him in the Republican primary. The choosing of a candidate is a party function, and only Republicans can choose their candidate.

Should Ron Paul be the Republican candidate who makes it to the ballot in November, it is reasonable to expect that many, if not all of us, will be voting for him. But we will be doing so as individual voters, not following a Constitution Party endorsement.

In the meantime, we urge you to pay close attention to the way the Republican Party treats the one constitutionalist in their ranks – he is treated as a pariah, an outcast. The smear campaign against him has been vitriolic, from the mainstream press to those shills for the Republican Party — the pseudo-conservative talk show hosts. Pay attention, because you are seeing the heart and soul of the Republicans at work, and you can learn from their methodology. In short, it may be summed up as, “Speak conservative and nominate a socialist for office. The conservatives will have no choice but to vote for our socialist, who is ‘the lesser of the two evils’.”

What swirls about us like a three ring circus, the hullabaloo of the Republicans choosing which National Socialist will oppose the International Socialist of the Democratic Party, it is all an exercise in futility and irrelevance. It is a sideshow designed to distract you from the business of more important business, such as the selection of a Congress who, we might pray, will do battle with whoever wins the White House in November. If you have a candidate (of any party) who is running for the House of Representatives, or for the US Senate, who really grasps the Constitution and whom you believe will fulfill his oath to support and defend it, then you need to work for that candidate, and forget about the race for president. Dr. Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination. The power elite that controls the Republican Party will not allow it.

Until conservatives wake up and realize that the two major parties, in Congress assembled, have brought us this mess today, they are not going to do anything about creating a viable alternative. Republicans are every bit as guilty as the Democrats for deficit spending, printing phony money, illegal and unconstitutional wars, and an insane immigration policy. Instead of griping that the Constitution Party is not going to make the ballot, why not get to work this year to build the party in your county so that in the next election, we’ll be strong enough to seriously contest some seats in Congress? That is the way that you can make a difference, so that we may all have a real choice at the ballot box. When conservatives get tired of being played for suckers, we’ll be here to welcome you to an old concept – “Hope and Change that the Founding Fathers believed in!”

Our Texas State Convention will be held this year in Huntsville, Texas. The date is currently not decided, thanks to unwarranted meddling by the federal courts, but probably in June. If you want things to change, then we invite you to join this party, or at least make a regular donation, so that next time you will have a constitutional alternative.

The Cost of Regulation

Regulations exist to ensure that what people do is done a certain way. We don’t want people to erect fences, unless they are so high and made of such and such. We don’t want folks to be able to add on to their houses, unless the additions blend nicely and meet certain safety standards—for people and for wildlife. We sure don’t want someone to invent a craze or gadget that might catch on, unless we determine in advance how the paperwork should be filed, how much it ought to be taxed, who will inspect the item or activity. We don’t even want a few folks to work at all, unless we establish licensing requirements first or mandate membership in some organization.

Regulation in general costs individuals and businesses a lot of money to comply. Costs are passed on to consumers, or else taken in the shorts. Of more concern, according to ABC News reporter John Stossel, is the sheer distraction of creative power. The proverbial bar is raised by regulations, i.e., the threshold for achievement goes harder if not exactly higher. Creative impulses can in fact be thwarted, because regulations distract focus, diffuse effort, discourage risk-taking, frustrate intent, and spend a lot of (life)-time. Thus, things that could be simply aren’t, because the regulatory environment keeps them from being realized—a new engine or energy source perhaps, new medicine, maybe just a better mousetrap. The reason is that an inducement one place is a disincentive someplace else. Regulatory roadblocks and obstacles, including scrutiny, result in a comparative incentive to do something else or to go somewhere else. The implied message is certainly not one for the budding hero. Rather, regulations choke the best and instruct men and women of initiative to take the easier road, the one most traveled. Regulations don’t only depress the economy, they also depress the spirit.

The difference between something regulated and unregulated is in the measure of freedom. Stossel shrewdly observes that, Visitors to Moscow before the fall of communism noticed a dead-eyed look in the people. What was that about? I don’t think it was about fear of the KGB. Most Muscovites didn’t have intervention by the secret police in their daily lives. I think it was the look that people get when they live in an all-bureaucratic state. If you go to Washington, . . . you’ll see the same thing [in government agencies].

In order to get a new drug approved today, it costs $500 million and takes ten years. Thousands die waiting on the approved release of drugs that could be available now. Millions die for want of medicines that won’t be invented soon enough. The simple alternative in the area of medicine, as elsewhere, would be for the government to serve as an information agency and not as a nanny placement service. Did any of you hire the fed to be your babysitter? Sometimes I wonder who/what the government thinks it is! (It ain’t us for sure). Even if we allowed for some (albeit inefficient) government research, information alone would do more to help free people protect themselves than twenty-one warning labels on a stepladder. Indeed, that’s where we as a people may have gone wrong: we value other things now more than freedom it seems. “Give me absolute safety or give me death!”

The Clinton years accelerated a trend from the sixties, when he added 500,000 new pages to the Federal Register—a spider web of new little rules for everyone to obey. Notwithstanding the information age growth during the nineties, the US grew into an economic powerhouse in years when the government didn’t account for as much of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For most of American history, government’s share of GDP was five percent or less, but today it’s forty percent. Some regulations are necessary, and I don’t mean to categorically denounce them all—indeed, some environmental regulations even lack alternative market incentives. But let’s get off this regulation kick that stifles innovation. Today Los Angeles has the same economic output as all of Russia. Dallas, Texas outranks the whole country of Thailand, in terms of economic output. That should illustrate plain-as-day this important inverse relationship: between the healthier, wealthier societies of the world and those that are corrupt, bureaucratic, and politically controlled. Freedom should never take a back seat to “the good of the people” divined by government. Tell our babysitter she can go home now; we’ve suddenly grown up.

Why Doesn’t the Constitution Party Endorse Ron Paul for President?

Dr. Ron Paul is one of (if not singularly) the most constitutionally correct Congressmen elected to the United States House of Representatives in recent years. He has certainly been the one leading the charge to “End the Fed,” and oppose unconstitutional legislation that has been coming out of Washington (earning him the title of “Dr. NO).

Consequently, it is being asked over and over again, “Why doesn’t the Constitution Party do everything it can to get Congressman Paul elected to the presidency?” No doubt, Ron Paul is the kind of man that everyone within the Constitution Party could get behind (and has virtually done so in the past).

However, there are seven (7) specific points as to why the Constitution Party can not help Dr. Ron Paul in his bid for the Presidency (click on each link below to take you to that specific point or read them all by scrolling the page):

POINT ONE – It is impossible for the Constitution Party to NOMINATE Republican Candidate for President, Ron Paul
POINT TWO – It is impossible for the Constitution Party to “Help Elect” Republican Candidate for President, Ron Paul
POINT THREE – The need for an alternative when Republicans fail to nominate Ron Paul
POINT FOUR – Ballot Access and a Great Candidate of Our Own
POINT FIVE – The Constitution Party is not a PAC
POINT SIX – Breaking the Two-Party-Duopoly
POINT SEVEN – There is only one possibility for the Constitution Party to be able to get Dr. Ron Paul elected for President

POINT ONE – It is impossible for the Constitution Party to NOMINATE Republican Candidate for President, Ron Paul

There are several reasons why it is impossible for the Constitution Party to help elect Ron Paul for President.

1) First and foremost, the reason why the Constitution Party can not nominate Ron Paul for President of these United States of America is because Ron Paul has decided to run as a Republican. There is NO state in the union that allows a candidate’s name to be on an election ballot for more than one party.

2) Every state in the union has some sort of “sore loser” law that would prevent the Constitution Party from nominating Ron Paul after he lost the nomination in the Republican Primaries. To even suggest a write-in campaign for Ron Paul after he lost the nomination would be an absolute and complete waste of a vote, in that the vote WOULD NOT BE COUNTED.

There is only one scenario where the Constitution Party could nominate Dr. Paul for president and it is described in “Point Seven (7).”

POINT TWO – It is impossible for the Constitution Party to “Help Elect” Republican Candidate for President, Ron Paul

It has been suggested that the Constitution Party put “Principle over Politics” (the Constitution Party’s official motto) and help to get Ron Paul nominated and then elected as the Republican Candidate for President. There are several reasons why doing so is destructive.

1) Principle over Politics:

In order to discuss the issue of “Principle over Politics,” one must first define what principle they are talking about. To most people, “Principle over Politics” is the antithesis to “Party Politics.” On the one hand, I don’t entirely disagree with this, but on the other, principle over politics is far more then just suggesting that we should not be concerned with party boundaries when it comes to being able to support candidate of good moral and principled character. The following points three through six address additional principles that must be considered when talking about “Principles over Politics.”

2) The destructive nature of the Constitution Party officially endorsing Ron Paul for President:

Even if the Constitution Party went all out to endorse and totally became the Party of Ron Paul and dumped its entire treasury into Ron Paul’s Campaign and moved every single one of its voting members to support Ron Paul with all of their wealth (what little they have) and ALL of their time, forgoing ever other candidacy and focused 110% of our efforts to do nothing but elect Ron Paul, at the end of the day, those corrupt Republican Party leaders who are being controlled by globalist elitists would still reject Ron Paul and then there would be nothing left of the Constitution Party to provide an alternative candidate to the socialist garbage that the Republican Party would try to dump on us.

Audrey Queckboerner, State Chairperson of Indiana, has provided a personal testimony as to the corrupt and illegal means that kept Ron Paul from being nominated for President within the Republican Party in 2008. She was a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican State Convention and saw first hand the overt corruption that kept his name from being nominate. Click here to read her testimony (in .pdf format).

Most of us who have had an insider’s view of the Republican Party know that it has only gotten worse since 2008 and no amount of “grass roots” efforts will be enough to overcome the globalist conspiracy to destroy this nation.

It would be a complete wasted sacrifice of the Constitution Party to invest one once of effort to get a Republican elected as president, even one as awesome as Ron Paul.

3) The destructive nature of individual Constitution Party members endorsing Ron Paul:

History has shown that every person who invests their efforts to elect Ron Paul as president is diverting their efforts from building the Constitution Party. In 2008, many (probably most) in the Constitution Party endorsed and supported Ron Paul with their time, talent, and treasure (money) thinking that they were putting principle over politics.

After dragging his campaign on and on, Ron Paul finally announced the end of his candidacy and out of spite of Libertarian Candidate for President, Bob Barr, endorsed the Constitution Party’s candidate for President, Chuck Baldwin. But it didn’t matter because everyone had spent all their money and time on Ron Paul and had nothing left for Chuck Baldwin.

Take Illinois for instance; they have to get 25,000 uncontestable signatures to get on the ballot. They were promised money to help them get ballot access so that Chuck Baldwin’s name could appear on the ballot. However, because of the support of Ron Paul, there was no money in the coffers to help them, and Ron Paul sure didn’t release any of the money that Constitution Party members donated to his campaign and he sure didn’t suggest that his supporters now spend all their time and money to get Baldwin on all state ballots.

4) Ron Paul is a Republican:

While there are those who would suggest that this doesn’t matter, it matters a great deal. Ron Paul is a Republican running as a Republican candidate. It was the corrupt Republican Party Leaders that kept him from being nominated and they are only getting better at it and are even now preparing how they will keep any true conservative out of the race.

POINT THREE – The need for an alternative when Republicans fail to nominate Ron Paul

Wouldn’t you agree that if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination that there should be a place for all those supporters to go? What happens if the Republicans elect someone who is the antithesis to Ron Paul? Where are those people to go?

If the Constitution Party spends all of its time and effort to elect Ron Paul and he doesn’t win, then what? Just like in 2008, we’ll have nothing left to provide an alternative. In terms of ship building, the Constitution Party wouldn’t even be able to provide a raft for people to jump on, because we will have failed to get ballot access in crucial states and lost ballot access in the states that we do already have ballot access because we didn’t provide a presidential candidate.

It would be just as devastating to simply wait to see if Ron Paul receives the nomination in 2012 because there are some states that don’t even hold their caucus until August. By then, it would be too late and ludicrous to provide a 3rd Party candidate at that time.

In the eventuality that Ron Paul is not nominated by the Republican Party, it is imperative for the Constitution Party to be putting every single resource at our disposal to building a great vessel to receive all those who finally discover that corruption has once again reigned supreme in the Republican Party. Failing to do so, fails our nation and the American people.

POINT FOUR – Ballot Access and a Great Candidate of Our Own

One of the most important tasks of the Constitution Party is to get ballot access in every single one of the fifty states in the union. The Constitution Party has several states that do have ballot access and hold primaries. However, the party has many more that do not currently have ballot access. To support or endorse Ron Paul would mean not gaining ballot access and loosing ballot access where it already has it.

1) Those states working for ballot access:

Unlike the two major parties, 3rd parties have a far greater and in most cases daunting challenge of getting ballot access. Republicans and Democrats take this for granted because it is so easy for them to get on the ballot.

Take Illinois for instance. There is only one (1) statewide race and that is for the presidency. While the two major parties only have to get 5,000 signatures, third party and independent candidates have to deliver 25,000. In 2010, the Constitution Party delivered over 38,000 signatures and was still unable to achieve ballot access because of “Illinois corruption.”

There are others states that have to deliver far more signatures than Illinois. Indiana has to deliver over 34,000 and Oklahoma has to deliver over 75,000 signatures. There are even states requiring more than 100,000 signatures to gain ballot access.

If the Constitution Party decided to support Ron Paul and did not concentrate on getting signatures, NOW, for the Constitution Party, it would be absolutely impossible to do so later. Diverting any resource whatsoever to helping Ron Paul win his Republican nomination would mean the likelihood of not achieving ballot access in those states.

It is ludicrous to believe that a person supporting Ron Paul would be trying to get signatures for the Constitution Party’s candidate, all the while trumpeting support for Ron Paul.

2) States with ballot access:

There are several states where the Constitution Party is actually an established party, meaning they hold primaries. As mentioned before, it would be impossible for Ron Paul as a Republican to sign on as the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate in any state and be elected in the party’s primaries. That means, if the Constitution Party truly endorsed and supported Ron Paul, the Constitution Party members would have to forgo Constitution Party primaries and vote in Republican Primaries. This means that state would then lose their ballot qualifications and have to start all over again trying to obtain ballot access again and as mention above, which would most likely require signatures that could be 100 times greater than either of the two major party candidates in the future.

3) A Constitution Party Candidate:

Furthermore, and most importantly, it is our intention of running a candidate who is every bit as good as Ron Paul or even “constitutionally” better. While certainly, Ron Paul is VERY good constitutionalist, he espouses positions that are not in complete alignment with the Constitution Party’s Platform.

POINT FIVE – The Constitution Party is not a PAC

There is a huge difference between the mission of a PAC and the mission of a Political Party. The Constitution Party is a Partisan Political Party that NOMINATES (not endorses) candidates for election.

As a Political Party, endorsing candidates of another party would destroy the Constitution Party’s credibility. It would send a message that the Constitution Party does NOT have what it takes to find a Constitutional candidate of its own.

POINT SIX – Breaking the Two-Party-Duopoly

The Constitution Party believes it is time to break the two-party-duopoly.

1) Creation of the two-party-duopoly:

Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, is the premier authority on ballot access issues for third party and independent candidates in the nation. In 1994, Richard wrote a piece entitled, “The Importance of Ballot Access.” In it, there is a discussion about the “two-party” political system that exists in America. There is a definition of what it is and what it is not.

According to the article, in the 19th century, there was what was called “Vigorous Third Parties.” However, since that time, the major two parties have passed laws that have squashed any competition:

“Furthermore, in the 19th century, there was no such thing as public financing of the two major parties, which began for Presidential elections in 1974. Today, the Democrats and Republicans have their campaigns for President financed by the taxpayers. Under the 1974 law, no third party has ever received general-election public funding, although a handful of third-party Presidential candidates have received some primary season funds.”

We no longer have vigorous and active third parties because Democratic and Republican state legislatures passed restrictive laws that make it exceedingly difficult for third parties to get on the ballot in many states. These laws usually require third parties to gather signatures for a petition to be on the state ballot, and they often place strict deadlines for gathering such signatures.”

2) Both major parties are responsible:

Republicans can talk all they want to about how bad the Democrat party is, but the fact of the matter is that both parties have had their turns at the wheel and we have seen the consistent destruction of Constitutional principles regardless of which one was at the helm.

While Ron Paul has certainly espoused the principles that most in the Constitution Party would agree with, the fact of the matter is, Ron Paul has remained within the Republican Party that is at least 50% responsible for the condition this country is in and the “Globalist Elites” are in control of both parties.

3) Now is the time!

Last year (2010) there was a Gallup poll that reflected that thirty-some percent of Democrats were willing to vote outside their party, while there was only twenty-some percent of Republicans were willing to do so.

This year, the Gallup poll is reflecting that 52% of the Republicans are saying that they are willing to vote for 3rd Party candidates and over 45% of the Republicans are saying that they are dissatisfied with their presidential choices that have raised their hands so far.

This means that the Constitution Party has a golden opportunity to snatch up these disenfranchised Republican Voters and give them a REAL CHANCE to vote for a true conservative in the 2012 elections. If Ron Paul really wants a chance to win the presidency, he would abandon the fantasy that he can do so through the Republican Party.

POINT SEVEN – There is only one possibility for the Constitution Party to be able to get Dr. Ron Paul elected for President

The only way for the Constitution Party to get behind and Nominate Dr. Paul for the office of President of these United States of America is for him to leave the Republican Party and to seek our nomination.

However, he has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of running as a Constitution Party or a Libertarian Party candidate. So, instead of asking the Constitution Party to get behind Ron Paul, you should be asking Ron Paul to get behind the Constitution Party, the real answer to the political woes of this country.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Last weekend, Republican voters in South Carolina picked the candidate they want to be the GOP standard bearer for the November elections: Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich? Really? What did I miss? Or better, what did Republican voters in South Carolina miss?

What is not lost to virtually everyone who understands national politics is the fact that there is perhaps no State in the union where evangelical Christians have more influence within the State Republican Party than in South Carolina. For example, Greenville, South Carolina, is home to what could be regarded as the flagship university of evangelicalism, Bob Jones University. There are probably more evangelical churches, Christian schools, mission organizations, etc., per square mile in South Carolina than any State in the country. And the vast majority of them are politically active in GOP politics. So, when a GOP Presidential candidate wins South Carolina, you can be absolutely certain that he or she did so with the support and blessing from a sizeable number of evangelical Christians (and pastors) in the State.

In all candor, understanding the power and influence of evangelical Christianity in South Carolina Republican politics, Newt Gingrich’s victory in that State last week is extremely difficult for this writer to digest. I cannot think of a candidate that is more reprehensible to the values and principles that born-again Christians claim to embrace than Newt Gingrich!

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Have Christians (and other conservatives) had complete and total memory failure? To what problem could Newt Gingrich possibly be the solution (unless it’s the problem of Gold Diggers running out of good looking rich guys to sleep with)?

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

In the first place, Newt Gingrich is the personification of the word “globalist.” Gingrich is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Gingrich never saw a globalist agenda-item that he did not enthusiastically support such as: NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, FTAA, the North American Union (by whatever name it’s called at the moment), the NAFTA Superhighway, ad infinitum. Gingrich is as much committed to open borders as is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Gingrich is as committed to the advancement of the George Soros-sponsored Agenda 21 “green” initiatives as any person living today.

In the second place, Newt Gingrich’s actual record is fundamentally opposite his constant “conservative” rhetoric. Writing for The New American magazine, William Jasper reported, “During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state–while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the ‘homeless,’ businessmen, farmers, bankers, left-wing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991–$40 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991–$52.6 billion for agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992–$66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994–$250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.”

And let’s not forget that, after orchestrating the “Contract With America” that swept the GOP into a majority in both houses of Congress in 1994 (and promising to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and even eliminate five federal departments, including the Department of Education), it was Newt Gingrich that quickly abandoned those promises–which led to his eventual resignation following the 1996 elections, when voters fled the GOP in disgust after Gingrich’s compromises.

William Jasper also reported, “Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that Gingrich has run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that the National Director of TRIM James Toft was prompted to remark: ‘Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.’”

See William Jasper’s report at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73600337/Speaker-for-Whom-12Dec1994

In the third place, if the current trend toward nationalizing law enforcement and turning America into a police state disturbs you, Newt Gingrich is the last person in the world you would want to elect President of the United States.

Devvy Kidd writes, “On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn’t vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt’s cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN’s Crossfire, ‘If it wasn’t for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn’t have a crime bill.’

“Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition ‘threw’ the game, failing to challenge the bill’s fundamental flaw–that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties–and focused instead on ‘pork’ in the bill. ‘That crime bill stank to high heaven,’ charged Pat Buchanan. ‘It federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states.’”

See Devvy Kidds’ report at:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd449.htm

The contents of Newt Gingrich’s record in this report are merely the tip of the old proverbial iceberg. Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet; he makes Herman Cain look like the angel Gabriel. And this is the man Christians and conservatives in South Carolina want to be the next President of the United States?

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Ok, now let’s really get down to brass tacks. One reason why Gingrich won in South Carolina (and might win in Florida) is because many Christian voters will not vote for Mitt Romney, because Romney is a Mormon; and they won’t vote for Ron Paul, because he’s–well–Ron Paul.

Of course, many Christians voted for Rick Santorum, which explains his third-place finish. Santorum has built his entire campaign on trying to convince Christian conservatives that he is “their” man by talking up the hot button issues that social conservatives tend to focus on. But Santorum is just another G.W. Bush-type big-government neocon whose Senatorial record clearly shows that he votes with the big-government agenda the vast majority of the time. Some could even argue that Santorum is the elitists “conservative” Manchurian Candidate to pull votes away from Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the one man the elitists fear the most and will do anything to defeat.

Now, to Mitt Romney. Let me go on record, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney either, but it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. Absolutely nothing! I know a Mormon man who was a candidate for the US House of Representatives in the State of Utah whom I would support and vote for (for any office) in a heartbeat. His name is Scott Bradley. Scott is one of the most principled constitutionalists I have ever met.

Whether a candidate for public office is a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal is absolutely immaterial to whether or not I vote for him or her. The primary responsibility of a President (or any other civil magistrate) is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and to secure the rights and liberties of the American citizenry. That’s it! It is no skin off my nose where he or she goes to church, or even if he or she goes to church. It doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether they quote scripture or claim to be a Christian. What matters is that he or she honors their oath of office to defend the Constitution and the people’s liberties.

And as everyone should know by now, Mitt Romney’s track record in Massachusetts, from a constitutional point of reference, is absolutely abysmal. In fact, Romney’s Massachusetts’s health care monstrosity was the model for ObamaCare. In almost every discernable constitutional criterion, Mitt Romney falls short. And that’s why I won’t vote for Mitt Romney! In fact, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for the exact same reason I won’t vote for Newt Gingrich. (To his credit, however, at least Mitt Romney doesn’t have a passel of bimbos hiding under his bed.)

I have said it all over America, and I’ll say it again: I would rather vote for an unbeliever who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will not preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Next, let’s talk about Ron Paul. Many Christians all over America have foolishly rejected the candidacy of Ron Paul. They have done this for reasons which I will outline here.

“Ron Paul is not pro-life,” many Christians purport.

Of course, this statement is laughable. As a long-term US House member from Texas, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The so-called pro-life GOP in Washington, D.C., had several opportunities to pass this Act when it held power in both houses of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006.

Had it passed, Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have done two things: 1) it would have declared unborn babies to be human beings under the law, 2) it would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court under Article. 3. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would have effectively overturned the infamous Roe. v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has never performed an abortion; but he has delivered more than 4000 babies; he has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in the US Congress–but he’s not “pro-life”?

Newt Gingrich, as speaker of the House, did absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers domestically and internationally from receiving US taxpayer dollars. In fact, while Gingrich was Speaker of the House, taxpayer funding for abortion providers increased dramatically! Neither has he ever supported or promoted the Sanctity of Life Act, but since he “says” he’s pro-life, many Christians vote for Gingrich and not Paul?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I cannot support Ron Paul because he says he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a sin or not,” say many Christians.

Most readers know that I have been a minister of the Gospel for over 35 years. My convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality are well known. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from when I say that whether or not Ron Paul has a personal question as to whether homosexuality is a religious or biological issue has absolutely nothing to do with his fitness to be President of the United States. Absolutely nothing! We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.

Dr. Paul’s personal religious belief is not the issue. The issue is his fidelity to constitutional government. What Christians seemingly do not understand is that constitutional government does more to protect their God-given Natural rights than all of the religious rhetoric of all the politicians of the entire country put together!

Dr. Paul understands the nature of government and the nature of liberty. And he is committed to returning government to its rightful jurisdictional authority Dr. Paul knows that the states and local communities are the best protectors of the liberties and the values of the people–including the values relating to aberrant sexual behavior within those communities and states–NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (Listening to many so-called “conservatives,” one may get the idea that they would be fine with doing away with independent statehood altogether and letting the central government in Washington, D.C., run everything. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were a wiser lot and emphatically left the bulk of governing authority to the states.) For example, if the State of Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, that’s Nevada’s business. And if Montana wants to make prostitution illegal, that is Montana’s business. If Florida wants to make medical marijuana illegal, that’s Florida’s business. If, however, Montana wants to legalize medical marijuana, that’s Montana’s business. Frankly, it is none of Washington, D.C.’s business either way! Ron Paul understands that.

Look at all the federal mandates that states and communities are implementing contrary to the values and belief systems of the citizens of the respective states and communities. That would not happen if Washington, D.C., would butt out of our affairs and let us govern ourselves. And if Massachusetts and California want to deprive their citizens of their God-given liberties, the people of those states can either remove those governments from power or move to a State where liberty is protected. But at least there would be some states standing in liberty to which one could go. As it is today, the entire country is under the heavy hand of usurpation and oppression due to the fact that, outside of Ron Paul and a few others in Washington, D.C., hardly anyone inside the Beltway believes in constitutional government.

Plus, look at the inconsistency of trying to elect civil magistrates by some sort of religious litmus test: Dr. Paul has been married to his wife, Carol, for over 50 years without the first scandal involving immoral activity, but because of a personal question regarding a religious issue, many Christians cannot vote for him? But Newt Gingrich can have so many extramarital affairs that he probably cannot even count them all, and yet his personal view of religion and morality are found acceptable to many Christians?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I can’t vote for Ron Paul, because he is ‘anti-Israel,’” many Christians say.

Here are the facts: Dr. Paul has a Jeffersonian philosophy regarding foreign entanglements. He believes that we should trade freely with all nations, have diplomatic relations with all nations, and live at peace with all nations as much as is possible. He believes that Israel is a sovereign state and, therefore, has the right to determine its own affairs without Washington, D.C., dictating how, when, and what Tel Aviv can and cannot do for its own peace and security. He believes we need to butt out of everybody’s business and let sovereign states conduct their own internal affairs. He believes the US military should be used to protect the territory and people of the United States of America and should not be the world’s policeman or the puppet of the Security Council at the United Nations. But somehow, that is an unspiritual philosophy and many Christians can’t support him?

Newt Gingrich wants to continue the Wilsonian foreign entanglement philosophy by continuing to send troops to fight undeclared, unconstitutional wars; by continuing to entrap and enrage foreign capitols into conflicts that only serve the interests of international bankers and the military-industrial complex; by continuing to use Israel as a puppet to provoke conflict in the Middle East that only serves the purpose of advancing an international New World Order, and somehow this is seen as “spiritual” by many Christians who will support and vote for him?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

If the Republican Party has a death wish, they will nominate Newt Gingrich as their Presidential candidate. Gingrich is a snake-oil salesman; his words are absolutely meaningless; he has the morals of an alley cat; and he will sell America’s sovereignty to an international New World Order and turn our country into a police state. Christians, of all people, should know better.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Education, Taxes and Government Schools

School levies will once again be on the ballot in various districts around my home state of Washington on February 14 (Valentine’s Day). The education establishment learned some time ago not to put bonds and levies on the regular November ballot as they often fail at elections where larger numbers of voters turn out. In recent years, such levies are nearly always voted on in a so-called “special election” at an off season when nothing else is on the ballot and few voters participate. If the education establishment can get its base of support to turn out, and if few voters participate overall, then an ever increasing flow of revenue for the bloated education bureaucracy will much more likely result. Never mind the waste of taxpayer dollars spent on a special election – “it’s for the kids!”

My friend Rick Kiesz, editor of the Palouse Patriot together with his wife Carolyn, has written a great article on the topic of government schools and why he will be voting “No” on ALL school levies. I wholeheartedly agree with Rick’s sentiments and encourage you to read his article. However, I have a few thoughts of my own that I’d like to add.

I’m sorry to have to say it, but those of us who identify ourselves as Christian, conservative or Constitutional, tend to spend more time complaining than taking action. We’ve become too preoccupied with talking about how big the education establishment is, how much money they have and how much power they have. We’ve convinced ourselves that there’s nothing we can do to stop the Godless, humanistic, socialistic brainwashing of a generation by the all-powerful government education establishment. But I beg to differ. In fact, I dare say that there are few if any problems facing America today that we couldn’t lick if we had the courage of our professed convictions and were willing to endure a little hardship and make some sacrifice.

For example, I’m persuaded that if Christians, conservatives and Constitutionists were to act on their professed values, we could demonstrate for all to see that there isn’t even a need for a government run education system. If the large percentage of the population that identifies as Christian were to place their children into Christian private schools, or homeschool (an equal or in some cases even better alternative), the government run schools would become virtual ghost towns. The injustice of taxing all the citizens in order to prop up the establishment bureaucracy that serves only a few, would become evident for all to see. The people would soon demand their tax dollars be returned to them to be used on the education option of their choice. The government education bureaucracy just might be put out of business altogether.

Now some will say “oh, but we can’t afford a private school tuition.” This is where putting our money where our mouth is comes in. If everyone who rails against the deplorable and depraved state of the government schools were to donate $5, $10, $25, or $50 per month to a private school (or a neighborhood homeschool family), that school could then reduce it’s tuition rate so that most any family could afford a private education. Those with successful businesses, or those who have finished raising a family and whose household expenses are now reduced, have no excuse.

If every Christian-conservative-Constitutionist were to act on their professed convictions, private Christian schools would become the new booming industry in America. They would be springing up in every neighborhood. They would be hiring teachers who would be set free from the bureaucracy of the government education establishment and turned loose to teach with all of their God given natural talent – free to honor their Creator as they educate children with all of the gifting that He has given them. And thanks to people like you giving to help support those private schools, they could offer assistance to families who truly cannot afford the tuition. The devotion of parents to their children in homeschooling or sacrificing to pay a tuition, and the sincere charity of others in assisting those who need it, would soon replace the bloated, bureaucracy ridden, government education establishment.

Gee, I’m getting myself all worked up here. Maybe I’ll just have to practice what I preach. Okay, I just stopped and wrote a check to the K-8 school at my church. Take that government schools!

This might sound like the lofty, idealistic vision of a dreamer, but the fulfilling of the dream is really only as far away as each of us giving up going to a movie once a month, or giving up a latte a couple times a week – a sacrifice alright, but much less sacrifice than those who laid down their lives and fortunes to give us this country. My point is that it is doable if we are willing to do what it takes. Therefore, whiling away my days complaining about the current state of affairs just isn’t an option for me, not while action can still be taken.

While the current government run education system remains, please don’t talk to me about the need for a levy or bond until the entire education system, from Washington DC, to Olympia, to the local school district, has undergone and implemented all of the recommendations of an independent performance audit and is running at the efficiency levels that would be expected and required in the private sector. You see, I’m persuaded that the problem isn’t that taxpayers aren’t taxed enough. I’m persuaded that the problem lies in a bureaucracy that consumes most of the funds before they ever make it to the classroom.

If it were up to me, I’d start by firing everyone in DC, Olympia and the local district except the teachers, the building maintenance staff, one principal and secretary per school and one administrator and secretary per district. I believe our teachers are smart enough to figure out how to properly educate children without an army of bureaucrats in far away places telling them how to do it. And if the district administrator isn’t capable of ordering the books requested by the teachers and assigning maintenance staff and funding in a manner that properly maintains the facilities, then we need to add hiring a new administrator to our to do list.

Perhaps this sounds excessively harsh, like I’m being too severe, I mean really, expecting a government bureaucracy to tighten its belt and live like those of us in the private sector, yea, that’s just plain unreasonable.

On this Valentine’s Day, or whatever day levies might be on your local ballot, let’s have a heart, show some love for the kids and vote “No” to heaping more debt, taxes and government bureaucracy on the backs of future generations.

Get more information about schools and levies at www.taxfacs.com
(information is for Spokane County, but is indicative of the situation elsewhere)

Constitution and Civility

One of several important breakthroughs in political science our Founding Fathers achieved, is the establishment of an entirely new category of law; namely, the Constitution. The Constitution is the nation’s highest legal and moral authority—popularly accepted as such. Yet its ratification took place over 200 years ago, amongst a generation long since dead and gone. Charles Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, says “Thus for Americans, the oldest law is the highest law.” And he continues to point out how unique this is among nations:

This is not a normal or an automatic outcome of popular government. Most of the time, republics and the people who move their politics tend to think that if they make a law “A” one day, and a law “B” that contradicts “A” the next day, the newer law supersedes the old. What is unusual about the Constitution is that this rule is completely reversed in respect of it. The oldest law is the most authoritative, and is indeed the only law that “the people” as such have ever passed. Other law is statute law, law made by representatives of the people. Thus every other law needs to be adjudged in light of the only law that is genuinely ours, the Constitution.

Clearly, some would prefer that the Constitution evolve and stay up with the times. There is even a modern liberal legal theory that affirms a so-called “living Constitution.” This is another way of saying the Constitution means what lawyers and judges say it means. Besides the Constitution as a category of law, the Founders also bequeathed an aspect of culture, which helped to give the Constitution stability and its impressive longevity. Historically a part of America’s democratic culture, the aspect has sadly deteriorated as “living Constitution” theory advances. I’m referring to political civility, the idea that citizens will be civil to one another despite political disagreements. The disagreements are less important
than the resolve to remain fellow citizens. Of course, a necessary precondition for this type of civility is that citizens do agree on certain fundamentals, so that disagreements really involve secondary issues. This is possible when the
central government remains limited, or when fundamentals are settled at State and local government levels. The War Between the States was a time when folks (rightly and wrongly) disagreed on fundamental issues, which the federal
government could not leave to States or localities. With discrete fundamentals settled on the battlefield, we’ve stayed more or less civil since Reconstruction.

Today I wonder about the Founders’ great handiwork. Though altered much, it has survived in large measure. But I worry as civility departs, because government has grown too big and too intrusive in matters belonging outside its scope. I worry as respect for the Constitution itself declines, when citizens fail to distinguish rights from their desires, and political expediency supplants principle. During the last presidential election, people were tempted to say the popular or
consolidated national majority (pure democracy) should rule the day—even though the constitutional majority entails both democracy and federalism and is the only majority that may govern the United States as a free country. What would George Washington have thought of the spectacle? The first president was quintessentially both civil and constitutional, in his personal example and professional conduct. He was also straightforward and literate. The following is taken from his Circular Letter of 14 June 1783, but Washington’s words ring true today:

The foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period; the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent; the Treasures of knowledge, acquired through a long succession of years, by the labors of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, are laid open for our
use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United Statescame into being as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.