Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls (ONLY ONE American Biblical candidate: RON PAUL)

One News Now ^ | April 5, 2007 | American Family News Network

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls
Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
April 5, 2007

A former presidential candidate laments that only the 2008 presidential candidates who raise the most campaign cash will make it through the "filters" of the mainstream media. He suggests that those candidates dubbed by the media as leading contenders, based on that criteria alone, should matter little to Christian voters.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) has announced she has raised $26 million in first-quarter campaign fundraising this year (her reported total of $36 million includes $10 million transferred from her 2006 Senate campaign account). Rival presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) nearly matched Clinton with a reported $25 million raised during the first three months of the year, while Democrat John Edwards has raked in $14 million. On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has raised nearly $21 million, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has accumulated $15 million, and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) $12.5 million.

Attorney and former Constitution Party presidential candidate Michael Peroutka says he is not impressed by the record fundraising numbers. He contends that, regardless of the amount of money raised, none of the candidates represent what he calls "the American interest."

"There is a God -- our rights come from Him," Peroutka says by way of explanation. "The purpose of government is to protect and secure God-given rights. That's what the Declaration of Independence says; that's the American view. None of these candidates, regardless of how much money they raise, represents that view."

And Peroutka is quick to dismiss Senator Clinton's fundraising prowess. "You've got a candidate who in many ways, from the standpoint of a Christian or a biblical perspective, is not a serious candidate," he says.

"From an American perspective, from an American view of law and liberty and government -- what America was founded on," he continues, "you don't have a serious candidate in Hillary Clinton or John Edwards; and for that matter, you don't have a serious candidate in Romney or Giuliani or McCain."

Peroutka believes the only candidate who comes close to having an "American Biblical" view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who holds many libertarian views.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved

---

Well, that pretty well makes it "official". With the endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul by Michael Peroutka (the 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Nominee), following the prior endorsement of Ron Paul by Michael Badnarik (the 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee), the Third Parties of the Right are lining up SOLIDLY behind Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican Nomination in 2008.

Don't want "Third Party Spoilers"? Then VOTE RON PAUL in the GOP Primaries!
UNITE THE RIGHT!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

VOTE RON PAUL!
UNITE THE RIGHT!!

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for Pro-Life social conservatives.

• Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, recognizing the Personhood of every unborn baby and removing Abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Ron Paul is rated ZERO percent by the National Abortion Rights Action League.
• Ron Paul is an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act.
• Ron Paul voted to ban Homosexual adoption in Washington DC.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for Tax-Cutting fiscal conservatives.

• Ron Paul is ranked by Human Events as the biggest Tax Cutter in all of Congress. Paul Named #1 Tax Cutter in Congress: “(Paul) is a co-sponsor… of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th amendment and end income, gift, and estate taxes. Regularly pushes for tax cuts. Sponsor of bills to allow tax credits for private school tuition, to permit tax deduction of college tuition, and to stop all taxation of Social Security benefits. Opposes all unconstitutional spending programs.”
• Ron Paul has ranked in the 99th percentile of the National Taxpayer Union ratings every year he has been in Congress -- thus standing head and shoulders above his big government Republican rivals like gun-grabber John McCain, transvestite Rudy Giuliani, "Amnesty Sam" Brownback, Mike "Bill Clinton embodies the American Dream" Huckabee, and Pork-Barrel King Duncan Hunter.

RON PAUL is the ONLY 100% Anti-Terrorist candidate.

• The ruling government of Iraq is dominated by the psychopathic gang of murderers known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Al Dawa Party, who are the very same Islamic Terrorist Parties which bombed the US & French Embassies in Kuwait, and murdered 241 United States Marines in Beirut in 1983. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, of the Al Dawa Party, was the Bureau Chief of the Al Dawa Party's terrorist "Jihad Office" in Damascus in the 1980s and was thus heavily responsible for Al Dawa operations in Beirut, while parliament member Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of his ruling coalition is one of the "Kuwait 17", still under a Kuwaiti death sentence (in absentia) for his direct involvement in the vicious attack on the US Embassy in Kuwait! Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate calling for an immediate END to all Military and Financial support for the criminal Islamic Terrorist thug-regime of Iraq.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for National Defense and Foreign Affairs.

• Ron Paul voted for the National Missile Defense Act. (source)
• Ron Paul is one of only two co-sponsors of H. Res. 123, for the establishment of a Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to "conduct a full investigation of all unresolved matters relating to any United States personnel unaccounted for from the Vietnam era, the Korean conflict, World War II, Cold War Missions, or Gulf War, including MIA's and POW's." (POW-MIA InterNetwork)
• Ron Paul supports a strengthened Coast Guard and increased port security, and increased benefits for veterans.
• Ron Paul advocates United States withdrawal from the United Nations and withdrawal from the World Trade Organization. Says Ron Paul: "We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish." (source).
• "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." --U.S. President Ronald Reagan

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for the Bill of Rights.

• "Congress Unanimously Supports Paul Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties"
• Ron Paul is one of only five Congressmen to have an A+ Rating from the Gun Owners of America.
• Ron Paul Denounces National ID Card.

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate on Illegal Immigration.

• Ron Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. “Amnesty for lawbreakers is not the answer, and it’s time to rethink birthright citizenship,” Paul added. ("Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security")
• Ron Paul is a co-sponsor of HR 487, which "expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway or enter into any plans to create a North American Union between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico."
• "We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase." – Ron Paul (source)

RON PAUL is the ONLY socially-conservative Candidate defending the independence of the Christian Church against Federal "Faith-Based Socialism".

• "Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith." – Ron Paul (source). Every other so-called "social conservative" candidate actually FAVORS this underhanded Orwellian Federal assault on the Freedom of the Christian Church.

"I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of that body to endorse then-Governor Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan’s Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination. I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on '...a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.' I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom." – Ron Paul, Remembering Ronald Reagan

In 2008, I'm voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN. I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL!

"The greatest champion of conservative principles we have seen in Congress in the past quarter century."
(David T. Pyne, Esq., Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies)

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I find the idea of a libertarian being the “Biblical” candidate laughable. As would a lot of libertarians, too, I’d imagine.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Combined with (former Constitution Vice-Presidential Nominee) Chuck Baldwin's earlier supportive articles, the powerful endorsement of Ron Paul, "the only candidate who comes close to having an American Biblical view of law and government", by 2004 CP Presidential Nominee Michael Peroutka means that the full 2004 Constitution Party ticket is now lined up behind Ron Paul.... on top of his previous endorsement by the 2004 Libertarian Nominee.

UNITE THE RIGHT!
VOTE RON PAUL!

[kevkrom]

Well, that pretty well makes it "official". With the endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul by Michael Peroutka (the 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Nominee), following the prior endorsement of Ron Paul by Michael Badnarik (the 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee), the Third Parties of the Right are lining up SOLIDLY behind Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican Nomination in 2008.

That will take him all the way from 1% to 1.2%.

[traviskicks]

How much has Ron Paul raised? I recall he had over 500,000 a month or so ago, much before the filing date...

[traviskicks]

well, I dunno, the idea that one answers to God not government for ones actions, that man is king of his castle under God, not government etc... etc... are quite powerful ideas and mesh with biblical and libertarian views, depending on the semantics one prefers.

[pgyanke]

Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls (ONLY ONE American Biblical candidate: RON PAUL)

I take exception to the headline. He's alone if you only look at the front runners. He's not alone if you look at Duncan Hunter. Frankly, I think Hunter has a much better shot at the nomination and would unite the right better. Obviously, you can disagree with me... but that doesn't mean your candidate is alone in standing for America's founding ideals.

[M203M4]

One problem is the hijacking of the libertarian label by left-wing amoralists who wish to have license for and even be afforded hedonism. It comes down to the difference between positive and negative liberties, the the former constituting a bastardization of the very concept of liberty. All liberties are negative liberties. Anyone who fails to grasp or refuses to accept that is not a libertarian. They are Marxist hedonists.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I find the idea of a libertarian being the “Biblical” candidate laughable. As would a lot of libertarians, too, I’d imagine.

I am a Libertarian.

A former "Big-L" Libertarian at that -- paid the annual Party Dues, registered under Party Membership. I consider Ron Paul to be the BIBLICAL Candidate -- and as a LIBERTARIAN, I'm thrilled with his candidacy.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:... For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Romans 13:3,9)

If Government were to restrict its operations to the Basic Mandate approved by Saint Paul -- the Punishment of Murder and Aggression, Theft, Fraud, Abuse, and Contract-Breaking -- we would enjoy the Best, most Biblical, and most Libertarian government one could ever hope for.

UNITE THE RIGHT!
VOTE RON PAUL!!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Yeah, but while man answers only to God, individually, at the same time, the Bible also commands Christians to 1) obey every ordinance of man (except, of course, where it EXPLICITLY conflicts with the Word of God, so having to pay taxes doesn’t count) which is not something libertarians are big on, and 2) associate ourselves with a communitarian organisation called “the local church”, through which we are to serve and receive instruction.

[George W. Bush]

Peroutka believes the only candidate who comes close to having an "American Biblical" view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who holds many libertarian views.

Peroutka is right. The longer we watch the pre-primary, the less appealing the 'mainstream' candidates are (pretending for a moment there's anything mainstream about any of them).

[PhilCollins]

Tommy Thompson has a better shot at winning the nomination than Rep. Hunter and Rep. Paul. Two of the last three republican Presidents and four of the last five Presidents have been governors, and Thompson was a gov. for 14 years. No one has been elected President while the candidate was a U.S. rep. Tommy Thompson would unite the right. He’s pro-life, pro-tax cuts, pro-welfare cut, and pro-capital punishment.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

How much has Ron Paul raised? I recall he had over 500,000 a month or so ago, much before the filing date...

From what I understand, that's just what he raised off the (crappy) Exploratory Internet website.

I don't know how much he has since raised off the Internet, nor how much he has raised from his personal mailing list of 15,000 regular donors.

I haven't asked Penny (in Ron's office) for that information, and I doubt she would tell me if I asked (we talk on the phone sometimes -- it's not like we're Sunday-night poker buddies). Suffice it to say that he is raising a lot more money, a lot faster, than he has ever raised in his congressional campaigns -- and he's accustomed to running a campaign on a shoe-string budget, so hopefully each million will go a long way.

That's the best I can say for now.

[ex-snook]

Sounds good to me.

Liberal big money controls who is nominated by the big 2 parties. We can only vote for who they fund and they pick liberals in both parties. A conservative candidate will never attract big money nor be allowed in the managed ‘debates’. Money brands true conservative candidates as ‘nut jobs’.

Without campaign finance reform to equalize dollar disadvantage, a conservative candidate will never again get a nomination [which is why big money is against reform, they now contol the process in both parties]. Every election is win-win for liberals.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Yeah, but the thing is, the Bible mandates no single form of government. The Bible merely commands Christians to obey every ordinance for the Lord's sake. This is regardless of whether we live in a Constitutional Republic, a democracy, or a dictatorship. The only exception is where the government would require us to act against EXPLICIT statements in the Word of God. Even then, we must then suffer the consequences of our choice for the Lord, even if it results in persecution for that choice.

What's ironic is that, while we have folks running around basically making the Bible and the Constitution synonymous, the most perfect government that will ever exist will be an absolute monarchy headed by the Lord Jesus Christ during His millennial reign.

[pgyanke]

Don’t know much about him... probably a true assessment. That means the headline is even more offensive...

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Yeah, but the thing is, the Bible mandates no single form of government.

No single form of Government (although Calvinists like myself believe that a Republic is closest to the Biblical ideal); but the Bible does mandate a single Ethical Rule for any form of Government.

See my #10.

Ron Paul is the only GOP Candidate who subscribes to the Bible's Ethical Rule for Government.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

No single form of Government (although Calvinists like myself believe that a Republic is closest to the Biblical ideal);

Then why did Calvin establish an oligarchic theocracy in Geneva?

but the Bible does mandate a single Ethical Rule for any form of Government.

The Bible mandates MORAL law for anyone and everyone, in or out of any government. This is because, ultimately, what is important is not manmade government, but God's eternal truth. And libertarianism is, in its spirit, out of accord with quite a lot of God's eternal truth. The spirit of the law of Moses was most certainly not "live and let live". In fact, the Law of Moses, as well as the institution in the New Testament of the local church and the warnings we see about those whose actions are detrimental to the body as a whole, are communitarian, not individualistic or libertarian. The bad behaviour of one member of Israel was viewed in the Law as a threat to the blessing of all the nation, and to the cohesion of the nation.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls (ONLY ONE American Biblical candidate: RON PAUL) I take exception to the headline.

Respectfully, I wasn't stating my own opinion, I was just quoting the opinion of 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Michael Peroutka: "the only candidate who comes close to having an American Biblical view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul". I just happen to agree with the former Constitutional Nominee.

He's alone if you only look at the front runners. He's not alone if you look at Duncan Hunter. Frankly, I think Hunter has a much better shot at the nomination and would unite the right better. Obviously, you can disagree with me... but that doesn't mean your candidate is alone in standing for America's founding ideals.

I think that Duncan Hunter is excellent on National Defense and Border Security -- two areas where Ron Paul is also excellent.

HOWEVER, on the question of Fiscal Conservatism -- Duncan Hunter voted ZERO out of NINETEEN on the Flake Anti-Pork Amendments, including the amendment to kill the $250 Million dollar "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska -- by comparison, Ron Paul voted 19 out of 19.

Is Taxing hardworking Americans $250 Million dollars to build a pork-barrel bridge to nowhere "standing for America's founding ideals"? Is it Biblical? Given that Romans 13 says that Government is supposed to PUNISH THEFT, would Jesus Christ approve of Taxing hardworking Americans $250 Million dollars to build a pork-barrel bridge to nowhere?

John Calvin, the spiritual godfather of my own beloved Presbyterian Church, taught that Civil Magistrates should regard the Public Taxes as being very nearly as precious as the people's own blood:

Princes, however, must remember, in their turn, that their revenues are not so much private chests as treasuries of the whole people, (this Paul testifies, Rom. 13: 6,) which they cannot, without manifest injustice, squander or dilapidate; or rather, that they are almost the blood of the people, which it were the harshest inhumanity not to spare. They should also consider that their levies and contributions, and other kinds of taxes, are merely subsidies of the public necessity, and that it is tyrannical rapacity to harass the poor people with them without cause.

On THAT basis, Ron Paul -- the ONLY Republican Candidate who consistently earns a National Taxpayer Union "TaxPayer's Friend" Award EVERY YEAR -- is the only GOP Candidate who truly exemplifies Biblical Stewardship (not to mention Solomonic common-sense).

"The only candidate who comes close to having an American Biblical view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul".

Best, OP

[longtermmemmory]

How many MONTHS has he been running?

He has ZERO traction. The most he can hope for is “nudging the debate” and creating a block of voters he can use as a barganing chip for some cause one of the front runners would give him.

If Guiliani wins, I don’t think Ron Paul has any political capital to switch his pro-gun control, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-abortion favored by Guiliani.

The ONLY thing Ron Paul does is make Guiliani look centered in the eyes of the MSM. (at least the MSM that does not go “Ron who?”)

[George W. Bush]

I think that Duncan Hunter is excellent on National Defense and Border Security -- two areas where Ron Paul is also excellent.

HOWEVER, on the question of Fiscal Conservatism -- Duncan Hunter voted ZERO out of NINETEEN on the Flake Anti-Pork Amendments, including the amendment to kill the $250 Million dollar "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska -- by comparison, Ron Paul voted 19 out of 19.

A telling series of votes. It separated the real conservatives from the wannabes. I'll also note that Hunter wasn't as strong on gun rights as Paul and the Liberty Caucus. He did not co-sponsor with Paul against the old National ID program. He did not co-sign to withdraw from the U.N.

Is Taxing hardworking Americans $250 Million dollars to build a pork-barrel bridge to nowhere "standing for America's founding ideals"? Is it Biblical? Given that Romans 13 says that Government is supposed to PUNISH THEFT, would Jesus Christ approve of Taxing hardworking Americans $250 Million dollars to build a pork-barrel bridge to nowhere?

It's probably under the biblical rubric. It passed lawfully. That doesn't mean it was right to vote for it. And we should look at all the GOP candidates from the House or Senate on this matter. They squandered our fiscal conservative legacy. Except for Ron Paul who has been reliable for decades.

I expect that Ron Paul will be well-funded, probably will beat Tancredo and Hunter in fundraising. I think he'll stay in the race through the primaries and he will poll better than either Tancredo or Hunter. It's because he's taken such strong stands, often alone, that so many of us consider him "our other congressman". Ron Paul has earned our loyalty on core issues and never betrayed us.

[WhiteGuy]

the Third Parties of the Right are lining up SOLIDLY behind Ron Paul’s candidacy for the Republican Nomination in 2008.

As it should be.

Thanks for the ping.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Then why did Calvin establish an oligarchic theocracy in Geneva?

He didn't.

In point of fact, Calvin's Geneva was the only 100%-subscribed Popular Government since Ancient Israel... and the only one ever since.

They had not only been enacted by the Senate, they had been twice solemnly and unanimously voted by the people. "The people could not afterwards allege," says M. Gaberel, "that they were deceived as to the bearing of the laws they were sanctioning. For several weeks they could meditate at leisure on the articles proposed; they knew the value of their decision, and when twice – on the 20th of November, 1541, and again on the 2nd of January, 1542 – they came to the Cathedral of St. Peter's, and, after each article, raised their hands in acceptance of it, the vote was an affair of conscience between God and themselves, for no human power could impose such an engagement. They were 20,000 citizens, perfectly free, and masters of their own town. The Genevese people were absolutely sovereign; they knew no other limit to their legislative power than their own will, and this people voted the ordinances from the first chapter to the last." ~~ J. A. Wylie, "The History of Protestantism

In point of fact, the Bible -- yes, especially including the Old Testament -- certainly endorses the core principle of Libertarianism: The Natural Sovereignty of the Individual Human Being, as an independent reflection of the Imago Dei.

In fact, if you will kindly re-read the Ratification of the Constitution of Israel (Deuteronomy 27:14-26), you will find that God required unanimous popular subscription to the Constitution no less than TWELVE times before the Constitution went into effect: "And ALL the People shall answer and say: AMEN."

And, of course, if ALL the People agree to a given Law, then that fulfills all the ethical requirements of Libertarianism -- if I have AGREED that Murder and Theft and Fraud shall be punished by the State, then I am of course bound by my Contract. That's entirely Libertarian.

However, the unique beauty and virtue of Ancient Israel and Calvin's Geneva is reflected in an old Libertarian saying: "The 'Consent of the Governed' means each and every one!" By that standard -- the BIBLICAL standard -- there have actually been only TWO Governments in all of Human History which were perfectly Ratified, by totally-unanimous Consent of the Governed, according to God's Law and Human Freedom: the blessed Republics of Ancient Israel, and Calvin's Geneva.

Of course, God knows that Humans are imperfect, and that our unholy lust for the Evil of Forcible Government far exceeds our Respect for the Natural Sovereignty of the Human Individual. And so, in cognizance of our Fallen State, God has commanded us through Saint Paul to respect and obey the Civil Government insofar as it obeys His Mandate: That the purpose and justification for the Existence of Civil Government is that it shall Punish Aggression, Contract-Breaking, Theft, Fraud, and Malfeasance (i.e., Murder, Adultery, Stealing, False Witness, and Covetousness; see Romans 13).

According to the Bible, THAT is the only Godly Mandate for any Civil Government -- particularly any Civil Government which does not enjoy the blessing of Godly Ratification, 100% Popular Approval such as Ancient Israel and Calvin's Geneva!

And because RON PAUL seeks to massively cut back the size and scope of American Civil Governance -- and bring it far closer to the Biblical Standard of Punishing Aggression, Contract-Breaking, Theft, Fraud, and Malfeasance -- it is thus entirely correct to say that Ron Paul is the only Libertarian Candidate, and Ron Paul is the only BIBLICAL Candidate, amongst the GOP contenders in 2008.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It's probably under the biblical rubric. It passed lawfully.

Yes, "it's probably under the Biblical rubric", fine. It did pass lawfully, okay; and Romans 13 does tell us PEASANTS to pay our Taxes, I'll grant you.

However, as John Calvin pointed out in his Institutes, Romans 13 also teaches that it is a wicked Ruler who would exact such unnecessary Taxes from his people,"and that it is tyrannical rapacity to harass the poor people with them without cause".

I suppose that Romans 13 does teach us that we Peasants must expect to tolerate some injustices from the Civil Government. As anarchistically Libertarian as I might like to be in principle, it's hard to get around Saint Paul's plain words in practice. However, as you well know, Calvinists have always held that Genesis 9:6 applies as much against Men of Government as against the Men they Govern; and that when the Civil Magistrate's violations of the Second Table of the Law exceed his protections thereof -- then in that case, Civil Resistance is not only a Right, but even a Moral Duty, of the Christian citizen (i.e., "The Right of Regicide", in extreme cases).

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

well, I dunno, the idea that one answers to God not government for ones actions, that man is king of his castle under God, not government etc... etc... are quite powerful ideas and mesh with biblical and libertarian views, depending on the semantics one prefers.

I don't think that "semantics" are necessary. The Relationship between God and Man FAR precedes the Relationship between Man and Government... and as you correctly say, that's an understanding which is both Biblical AND Libertarian. ("Biblical Libertarian" -- like Ron Paul!)

God ordained the original Government of Judicial Israel with NO Taxes (except those Tithes which the People agreed to VOLUNTARILY pay in order to support the Priests and Judges) and NO making of Laws (except those Laws which the People VOLUNTARILY agreed to Obey, unanimously, when they consented twelve-fold times to the Ratification of the Constitution of Israel: Deuteronomy 27:14-26).

Forcible Government is a CURSE which God has imposed upon Mankind because of our SIN.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (1 Samuel 8:6-22)

Nationalistic Christians are seemingly fond of quoting the "submit yourselves" portions of Romans 13 whenever "their" Guy is in Power (while yet braying like scalded donkeys whenever the Opposing Party takes Power), but seem to forget entirely the teaching of 1 Samuel 8 -- like Sin, Poverty, and Disease, Forcible Government may be with us always until Christ Returns; but it IS a CURSE. We ought not be happy with our Curses any more than an abused wife should be happy with a wife-abuser.

"After two world wars, countless smaller wars, mass murders, religious and racial persecution, several species of tyranny, punishing taxation, erosions of ancient liberties, debasement of money, and state-sponsored moral decadence, you’d think modern man would have drawn certain lessons about the modern State. All of us ought to talk about the State the way the Jews talk about Hitler." ~~ Joseph Sobran (perhaps the finest columnist of our generation), "Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian"

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Tommy Thompson has a better shot at winning the nomination than Rep. Hunter and Rep. Paul. Two of the last three republican Presidents and four of the last five Presidents have been governors, and Thompson was a gov. for 14 years. No one has been elected President while the candidate was a U.S. rep. Tommy Thompson would unite the right. He’s pro-life, pro-tax cuts, pro-welfare cut, and pro-capital punishment. -- PhilCollins

There's one problem with your analysis.

Nobody cares about Tommy Thompson.

Fred Thompson, maybe (but he's not running, yet... and there's no real indication that he's going to run). But Tommy? Shout "Thompson" in a crowded room full of GOP Primary Voters, and 95% will think you (finally) have something to report about Fred Thompson's ephemeral pseudo-candidacy. And the other 5% won't really care....

Because nobody cares about Tommy Thompson. Deuces and Sevens Off-Suit, No Hand, Nobody Cares. Nobody.

By contrast, Ron Paul's supporters have the morale and motivation of an Army of the March. It's like how one Christian Movie Reviewer from Focus on the Family explained how the success of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" blew out all historic records and caught Hollywood completely by surprise: "For us, we're not going to the Movies. We're going to Church."

And we care... "WE CARE A LOT!" (Faith No More, "Introduce Yourself", 1987). Ron Paul supporters are willing to go to our family, our friends, our Liberal Democrat co-workers -- and preach, argue, supplicate, and BEG them to vote Ron Paul. We'll go to the Operation Rescue Pro-Life radicals, the Minuteman volunteer border-watchers, the Gun-Rights defenders, heck -- we'll go to our Jehovah's Witness uncles and cousins who are FORBIDDEN by their Religion from even Voting and PLEAD with them, "If you've ever doubted the WatchTower, even once, VOTE THIS TIME. Vote for Ron Paul. You can ask Father Jehovah for forgiveness later -- this time, it matters."

Yeah. We're that serious.

And most of us are equally serious about DEFEATING Rudy Giuliani -- and yes, I mean even in the General Election. It doesn't matter if you say (at this point) that Ron Paul can only poll 3 or 4%... because 3 or 4% in a closely-contested election will throw ALL of the House, the Senate, the Governorships, and the Electoral College one way or the other. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE seeing the Republican Party turned into a Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual, Anti-Gun "Democrat Lite" Party for the sake of an amoral wife-swapping New York Liberal Party Nominee who's "Good on War". As hard as I have worked for Ron Paul, I promise to work equally hard to DEFEAT Rudy Giuliani in the Generals if he is the GOP Nomineee. I will vote Constitution Party, and I will BEG all my Republican-registered Family and Friends to do the same -- just to defeat Giuliani.

The GOP must Nominate Ron Paul as the Republican Presidential Nominee. If the GOP does so, all the Third Parties of the Right will line up solidly behind Ron Paul (in fact, they already have). BUT.... if the GOP nominates Rudy Giuliani -- I will do everything in my limited power to convince every Republican I know to vote Constitution Party instead. And I won't be the only one. And if recent history is any guide, 3 or 4% will easily throw the General Election.

And no matter what else happens, it will be worth it. All GOP Pro-Aborts must be destroyed.

It's Ron Paul... or NOBODY. Period, full stop, end of story. No compromise.

In 2008, I'm voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN. I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL!

"The greatest champion of conservative principles we have seen in Congress in the past quarter century."
(David T. Pyne, Esq., Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies)

[L,TOWM]

It amazes me that some see a great dichotomy between the libertarian politics and biblically based views of the Proper Conduct of Man and Government.

I too was a Big L libertarian 25 years ago, paid the party dues, was a member of the San Diego County Committee, worked for for Clark’s presidential runs, all that good stuff. I was also an atheist and a druggie then; I loved Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” and its political manifestation.

As I have grown in my relationship to God through Christ Jesus, I see that liberty too is one of God’s greatest gifts. I see where the libertarians fall short of the mark, but still has many important things to say. For the most part though, I see clearly where the government’s “cures” of man’s vices, vices that will vex us until Judgement Day, are worse than the vices themselves.

Thanks for posting this OP and keep up the good fight. FReepmail me anytime if there is something I can help with in North Texas/the DFW Metroplex.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

In point of fact, Calvin's Geneva was the only 100%-subscribed Popular Government since Ancient Israel... and the only one ever since.

Technically true, but only because all the people who didn't agree were forcibly exiled or burned at the stake....

In fact, if you will kindly re-read the Ratification of the Constitution of Israel (Deuteronomy 27:14-26), you will find that God required unanimous popular subscription to the Constitution no less than TWELVE times before the Constitution went into effect: "And ALL the People shall answer and say: AMEN."

This has to be one of the worst acontextual arguments I've seen applied to the OT in a long time. What we see in Deuteronomy is a covenant, not a constitution. It was an agreement by the people of God to be faithful to the God who had brought them out of Israel. It was not the establishment of a democratic constitution to rule Israel. And it certainly wasn't the "whatever floats your boat" mentality that we see in modern libertarianism. Sorry, but I just don't see the God of Israel as being cool with marijuana, getting an abortion as long as you can pay for it yourself, or gay marriage. Modern libertarianism, if the vast majority of its proponents are any indication, is.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

For the most part though, I see clearly where the government’s “cures” of man’s vices, vices that will vex us until Judgement Day, are worse than the vices themselves.

I'm not a libertarian, and I'm also not a fan of big, intrusive government, but all the same, what do you make of Romans 13? Quite clearly, human government, even when it is perverted by human sinfulness, still (ideally) exists to deal with exactly those vices which vex us. Locke understood this, which is why his commonwealth ideology is more accurately biblical than is libertarianism.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Technically true, but only because all the people who didn't agree were forcibly exiled or burned at the stake....

Bullfeathers.

All historical records of the actual event of the Genevan Ratification (not including any anti-Calvinist Roman Catholic propaganda written long after the fact and at a great distance from the city) confirms the Fact that the Constitution of Geneva was ratified perfectly, according to the Biblical Rule of 100% Popular Sovereignty, by Unanimous Popular Consent and without any recorded threat or duress of any sort imposed in any way.

"They were 20,000 citizens, perfectly free, and masters of their own town. The Genevese people were absolutely sovereign; they knew no other limit to their legislative power than their own will, and this people voted the ordinances from the first chapter to the last." ~~ J. A. Wylie, "The History of Protestantism

Any Capital Punishments or Exiles which occurred in Geneva thereafter were executed according to the openly-published and unanimously-ratified Laws of Geneva, and afforded the Accused far superior Rights of Due Process than any similar protections (if any) offered by the horrific and inquisitorial Roman Catholic legal-religious establishments otherwise prevalent throughout Europe at the time (and even in that benighted day, Europe led the world on the concept of Individual Rights and Due Process).

This has to be one of the worst acontextual arguments I've seen applied to the OT in a long time. What we see in Deuteronomy is a covenant, not a constitution. It was an agreement by the people of God to be faithful to the God who had brought them out of Israel. It was not the establishment of a democratic constitution to rule Israel.

"Acontextual"? Howzabout you offering a distinction without a difference? The only distinction between a Covenant and a Contract (BOTH of which can be a "Constitution"; ergo, even your minor "distinction" really doesn't even make any sense; but let's ignore that for now) is that in the case of a Covenant, only ONE Party sets the Terms (as opposed to Mutually-Negotiated Terms, in Contract).

HOWEVER, in the case of both Covenant and Contract, the Requirement of Ratification by Unanimous Consent remains the same (whether Covenant or Contract, you are only Morally Bound when you Consent to an Agreement). AS SUCH, whether Covenant or Contract (and I'll happily grant that the Constitution was in the Covenantal form; i.e., One Party [God] defined the Terms), the fact remains that the Ratification of the Constitution was effected by Unanimous Popular Consent.

UNANIMOUS Popular Consent is thus the Biblical Ideal for Human Governance, although it has only been acheived twice in all of Human History -- the Republics of Ancient Israel and Calvin's Geneva, both of which enjoyed particular and especial Blessing from God.

And it certainly wasn't the "whatever floats your boat" mentality that we see in modern libertarianism. Sorry, but I just don't see the God of Israel as being cool with marijuana, getting an abortion as long as you can pay for it yourself, or gay marriage. Modern libertarianism, if the vast majority of its proponents are any indication, is.

I'm a Biblical Libertarian. As is Ron Paul.

• I'm against State-sanctioned Homosexual Marriage (I don't think the State has any business in defining Marriage, and most Libertarians agree with me. If a Private Contract under God was good enough for Abraham and Sarah, good enough for Moses and Zipporah, then I say let's get back to the Bible and PRIVATIZE Marriage entirely. Forcible Government is a Curse; let's not bring it into the Sacrament of Mariage [which is a holy Blessing]).

• I believe that Abortion is Murder, and should be Defined and Punished as such by the States (Constitutionally, the States define and enforce Murder Law). Ron Paul believes the same, and has been known for 30 years as a very strong Pro-Lifer (in fact, his 1988 Libertarian Presidential Run established a tradition of Pro-Life Libertarian Candidacies which has since been broken only once, in 1992 by Libertarian Pro-Abort Andre Marrou).

• As to Marijuana, I'm certain that you are correct that the God of Israel is "Not Cool" with someone becoming intoxicated, whether by drinking alcohol or by smoking hemp leaves (which was George Washington's preferred form of intoxication; he hated alcohol). However, the question for Forcible Government is: Would Jesus of Nazareth break down someone's door and put a gun to their head to prevent them from smoking hemp? And the answer, of course, is No. There are 613 Laws in the Old Testament, and in EVERY CASE Intoxication -- involving any intoxicating substance whatsoever -- is ALWAYS regarded as a Moral Sin, NEVER a Civil Crime.

  However, while Ron Paul may agree with the Bible on the foolishness of criminalizing Private Intoxication, he does understand that Constitutionally we Americans leave such issues to the discretion of the State Governments. And in that, he's quite right.

So, all in all: as a Fundamentalist Biblical Inerrantist, and as a Libertarian -- Ron Paul looks right on the money to me.

UNITE THE RIGHT!
VOTE RON PAUL!

[George W. Bush]

However, as John Calvin pointed out in his Institutes, Romans 13 also teaches that it is a wicked Ruler who would exact such unnecessary Taxes from his people,"and that it is tyrannical rapacity to harass the poor people with them without cause".

Granted. And that kind of spending is a sure sign of partisan tyranny and one of the reasons the Republicans were routed in the '06 election.

[L,TOWM]

“Who will fight the power? For the Ruler does not wield the sword in vain...” I am familiar with Romans and the chapter you refer to.

My take is that punishing criminal behavior has been the gubmint’s job since Sargon. Providing a degree of safety in a geographical area has been the job of “the ruler(s)” since before the Flood. Providing and enforcing “order”, i.e., the rule of law to the people’s social, cultural, and economic system, be that in a tribe, city, state, nation, or empire is the government’s job. The basic safety and security issues are government’s job. And living an orderly life, where you are responsible for your own actions, including obediance to the law, is one call of every believer.

When the government starts sticking its nose into economic activity that does not involve fraud, theft, coercion, or violence, the cure often evolves into something worse than the disease. And those vices that vex you may not be the vices that vex me.

I have gambled, but do not now, beyond the office fantasy sports league buy-ins. I no longer drink or take drugs, but once indulged in those vices daily. I have never visited a prostitute. It has been years since I have looked at porn. I no longer use tobacco, but did for years. Having said all that, I do not believe that trying to eliminate these vices from society is worth the costs of the effort. Even if the effort were somehow successful, which it will not be this side of Christ’s Kingdom.

I value freedom and the responsibility that goes along with that freedom — the freedom and responsibility that God has told me I have to train my children (they are homeschooled), the freedom and responsibility to have the means to protect my family (home security by Winchester) and the freedom and responsibility to worship in whatever manner the Spirit leads me. I do not see a contradiction in this society of me using my franchise to vote for those persons that understand the limits of Government. I also believe that limited Government makes true obediance to God easier, in fact, more necessary if society is viable and vibrant.

Look around you today — Are people more responsible than they were 100 years ago? Are they more free? I believe that there is a direct corolary there.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for the flag!

[The_Eaglet]

well, I dunno, the idea that one answers to God not government for ones actions, that man is king of his castle under God, not government etc... etc... are quite powerful ideas and mesh with biblical and libertarian views

I agree. There are places where libertarian philosophy and Biblical morality overlap, and Ron Paul is there.

[The_Eaglet]

The ONLY thing Ron Paul does is make Guiliani look centered in the eyes of the MSM. (at least the MSM that does not go “Ron who?”)

Ron Paul makes Giuliani look like a perverted cross-dressing crook.

[Petronski]

Isolationist nutbars will not be getting the nomination in the GOP.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for the history discussion. The popular subscription is an important point.

[Dog Gone]

Ron Paul will not even win his own district in Texas. The whole discussion is ridiculous.

And some hope that he’ll opt out and run as third party candidate after getting blown out in the GOP primaries is more than ridiculous. He wouldn’t even qualify to be placed on most state ballots.

He surely wouldn’t in Texas. It would be too late to gain enough signatures. Ralph Nader couldn’t even qualify for the Texas ballot last time and he wouldn’t have had to run in a primary.

[malibu2008]

Peroutka is right. The longer we watch the pre-primary, the less appealing the 'mainstream' candidates are (pretending for a moment there's anything mainstream about any of them). I agree with you George W. - there will be a burn-our factor of the 18 months of Hilary and Obamania and McRomney high finance campaigns - when does the American populace start to look deeper at these "candidates" than a television set ? McRomney might be buying airtime and getting his College Station, TX visit on CSPAN last night, but I hate to tell ya'....those people in the audience are not committed voters, they are just seeing what a moe-ron McRomney truly is. The last place we need to look for a President is in Massachusetts - McRomney will lose if he's on the GOP ticket - no matter how much money he spends/wastes. Heck, Hilary probably donates to Romney's campaign since she'd love to run against the Mormon Moron.

[traviskicks]

thanks, that was an interesting except I’d never heard of. If you’re interested I expanded on it a bit:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/warning_concerning_a_king.htm

[traviskicks]

(Additionally, post 26 contains an interesting bibilical persepective on Libertarianism.)





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[gondramB]

>>Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls (ONLY ONE American Biblical candidate: RON PAUL) <<

There is no point is attacking “big money” candidates. Since the current President Bush set the precedent of forgoing public financing the field of battle will never be the same.

It used to be that if you could win your parties nomination by whatever means you were equal footing in the general.

Now that candidates are raising big money from the beginning and are not limited by the rules of public financing it is unlikely we will ever again see anyone but a big money candidate elected.

That’s just the way it is.

[P Campbell]

I am and I don’t.

[P Campbell]

I agree. If Ron has to drop out, my second choice is Tom Tancredo. If he’s out of the running, I can always stay home—something I would never have dreamed of doing 4 years ago.

[P Campbell]

I agree. And I refuse to let the RNC ram a candidate down my throat. I’m just not doing it anymore. I can stay home,or I can vote 3rd party.

[The_Eaglet]

I recommended that latter (or an independent) over the former.

[P Campbell]

All the same, I refuse to roll over & play dead. “Settling” on candidates is what has gotten us to the point we’re at. If enough people refuse what we’re being force fed, they might actually get the message.

I’m not worried about what those in the other camp think if there’s infighting; I’m worried about America.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>Isolationist nutbars will not be getting the nomination in the GOP.

Globalism candidates are getting quite passe.

Didn’t you know that it is “out” this year to be a globalist? Globalists cause job loss in the U.S. and workers without jobs can get quite angry at the ballot box.

Ron Paul is the candidate with the best “economic freedom” fit. Some of the RINO’s that suck at the public trough will of course be disappointed. But, Ron Paul will appeal deep into Democrat territory (Reagan Democrats).

Paul’s only weakness is on defense. But, I expect him to only move our troops to the point of our invasion: the US / Mexico border.

There is no other issue more important today than illegal immigration — and that includes abortion, Iran, N. Korea, and Iraq. We will lose our right to choose if we continue to allow illegal immigration.

On all moral issues, Ron Paul comes out a winner over the rest of the media hounds (ho’s ?).

[The_Eaglet]

Didn’t you know that it is “out” this year to be a globalist?

I anticipate that this will be the case next year, too.