"To My Fellow Christians" ~ A Letter From My Beloved

I'm sorry for my absence!  I've been struggling with intensified morning (a.k.a all-day) sickness for the last couple of weeks as we're approaching the end of our first trimester & simply haven't had the stomach (ha!) for writing.  But, I do have something to share with you today - a rather lengthy something written by my beloved, who has quite a gift with words!  I have been wanting to write a post on how Ron Paul's (yes, him again) views are, in fact, biblically based.  Well, out of the blue, Michael wrote a letter doing just that!  And I'd like to share it with y'all, first of all because it's very good, & secondly because I don't have to write it!  ;-)

"To My Fellow Christians,

I feel compelled to address my fellow believers, especially conservative evangelicals, as pertains to the common misconceptions concerning Ron Paul. As one who has long admired Ron Paul and the Austrian Free-Market School of Economics that informs his economic thinking, and also one who loves theology, I do not understand biblically why so many believers have the problems they do with Ron Paul, or are not strongly considering him during this election season. I would like to bring up some points in my letter that many of us may have not considered and would like feedback as to where I may have possibly gone wrong in my thinking. Personally, I've kept up with Dr. Paul since the early 1990s and love the man and what he stands for. He is quite remarkable in a myriad of ways. I think it's important for us to all be aware of these things, especially since the media is not making us aware of the facts, is often excluding him, and casting him in a negative light through mischaracterizations and half-truths. My hope is I can compel many of you to take an honest, non-biased look at Ron Paul, and to fulfill a responsibility as an American and a Christian to make an informed choice.

Are you aware of the Sanctity of Life Act Paul reintroduced to Congress in 2005? Ron Paul has taken a strong pro-life stance over his 30 years in political office. His professional life began as an OB-GYN MD. He delivered over 4,000 babies and his standard in his medical practice was pro-life, having never performed an abortion in 25 years as an MD. Part of the Sanctity of Life Act includes the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. But, I would like to bring to your consideration another area that should define our pro-life stance, and this is an area that sets Ron Paul apart from all other candidates. Is it important to be pro-life for not only the unborn, but also for those innocently killed in an unjust war or as the result of U.S. sanctions on other countries? I commonly imagine a scenario, which is very real for some, of if I lived in Afghanistan or Iraq, or another country affected by our sanctions/wars, and was innocently sitting in my home with my wife who is 8 months pregnant and 3 children and a U.S. war plane's bomb misses its intended target, hitting our home and killing all my family but me. Thousands of innocent people have died by similar means. Where does this play into being pro-life? I also think of our sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s which led to the deaths of an untold number of women and children. This may not have been directly caused by our sanctions, but at the least was indirectly. Should we Christians be concerned about life issues when it comes to these type situations, or just with the unborn? Or, is collateral damage perfectly acceptable as long as it's not Americans who die? It's easy for us to sit over here in America and ignore the plight of others who've suffered due to our non-pro-life foreign policy, yet all the while we voted for and supported it. How is that Christian?

As far as Paul's foreign policy, it has been described as being a "golden rule" foreign policy and is based on the just-war theory of Christianity. Is this not the most biblical? Does this not fit more with the biblical world view in the N.T. and how we're called to think as Christians? Having looked fully into his foreign policy myself, it makes a lot of sense. He has written a book on it and is on the Committee On Foreign Affairs. For us to think we know better than other countries, dictating to them what they can and cannot do, violating the national sovereignty of other countries, playing the role of world-bully at times, and policing the world like we do is arrogant and prideful. It also makes sense that our continued military presence in Muslim lands is like pouring fuel on the fire of radical Islamists' hatred toward us "infidels" and leads to more problems than would have been otherwise. It seems evident that our foreign policy has led to resentment by other nations, like Paul points out, and that understanding fallen human nature as we do, is a plausible explanation for much of our trouble when it comes to terrorism against us. Does it not make sense that the principle of blowback and our involvement in preemptive wars are major reasons for terrorism against the U.S.? And back to my example of an errant bomb killing innocent people, what if that happened here in the U.S.? Would we not demand retaliation and harbor resentment? So why is it okay simply because we're the ones dropping the bombs? It goes both ways. Not to mention how angered we would be if they had a long-standing presence on our land with military bases. It makes complete sense that we've angered many against us, and this is particularly dangerous when it has occurred in Muslim lands where they already have religious/theological reasons to hate us. Like I said, we're putting fuel on the fire of hatred toward us. Dr. Paul has some excellent, common sense points here.

Are you concerned with the issue of economic freedom? Is it OK for one group to manipulate its way by various corrupt means into political power, and then dictate policy in their economic favor to the detriment of others? Food would be a big example in the U.S. of what I'm talking about as pertains to this issue of economic freedom. Is having someone like Paul to fight against this type of corruption consisting of theft, greed, covetousness, selfishness, and lack of love toward one's brother important? It seems like the issue of economic freedom along with other important issues are not on the other candidates' radars, and, unfortunately neither seems to be on many believers' radars. As believers, should we allow - by not voting for a strong leader such as Paul, who's keenly aware of the problem - the roughshod ways the powerful and elite corporations are running all over their smaller competition? Competition who commonly have our good in mind and are making superior products which are better for us? Should we allow them to go on inserting themselves by morally corrupt means into policy-making positions and making laws and rules favorable only to themselves while stripping away our freedom of choice? Should we not be leaders on this issue of economic freedom, and call out for what is right by putting an end to the injustice and ensuring a true free-market economy for all, so everyone has equal and fair footing? I think similarly to how Jerry Bridges points out such a thing as "respectable sins" and our lack of seriousness about them. We're ignoring the "respectable sins" found so prevalent in our federal government - greed, covetousness, stealing, pride, selfishness, and lack of love towards one's fellow man, not to mention others - while we're caught up on the "big" sins of homosexuality and a lack of prayer in secular public schools. Notice, I did not include abortion as a "big sin". Abortion should always be opposed by all Christians and should play the most prominent and overriding role in how we vote, period.

Also, in view of us living in a secular culture, would it not be better if we Christians were not known for using the political process to legislate how secular lost people live? Are we not placing ourselves in an "us vs. them" situation? Also, are we expecting unregenerate men to live like regenerate ones when there is no way they can, when this is the only way they can live since they're dead in their sins? Are we going to make them externally conform with no heart change? We should shun the culture war, and be more concerned about the spread of the Gospel. This is the only thing that will truly change a person from the inside out. I'm concerned when we get so caught up in a culture war that it hinders our Gospel proclamation and witness and muddies the water on what our mission is to be in this world. It appears that a lot of Christians are fighting to make their fellow Americans into white-washed tombs, perfectly content with an outward morality that still dooms them to eternal damnation. While I also oppose homosexuality, I believe we have proven over the last several decades that legislating morality to lost men does not work; we should rather win them to the Gospel, by the grace of God, so that both the outside and the inside may be cleansed. As relates to this, is Ron Paul's integrity in holding fast to the Constitution, which appears to end up hurting him in most believers' eyes because on issues important to Christians, he sticks to the Constitution in how the issues of concern should be dealt with. With integrity, Paul adheres to the Constitution by advocating states' sovereignty. He says, Constitutionally, the states should make these decisions, not the federal government. I'm thinking of the issue of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. If we give the federal government power to make decisions that should Constitutionally be left up to the states, do we not open ourselves up to a lot of misery in an ever-increasing secular world, as this would give them too much power to make decisions unfavorable to us down the road? Are we not better off insisting the federal government be properly caged by the Constitution according to its original intent, so we can protect against a too-powerful federal government? Our Founders warned about this, as I'm sure many of you are well aware. Our Founders were wise in the document they gave us and we should honor their design and intent like Ron Paul does. It also seems like Paul would have some credence with Christians since he handles/interprets the Constitution like we demand the Bible be handled/interpreted - getting at the authors' original intent. Also, in this same regard, would be the fact of Paul being a reformer, which is much needed with our out-of-control federal government. I liken Ron Paul to be to our out-of-control U.S. government what Luther and Calvin were for the Protestant Reformation. We should love a man like Ron Paul who rightly adheres to the Constitution, with tremendous fortitude and integrity, over a long period, when others have given lip-service to it, then trampled all over it.

Personally, I've grown weary of the same status quo, so-called conservative, historically uninformed, integrity lacking, ignorant of sound economic thinking, vow-breaking, paying lip-service to issues while campaigning but then reneging once in office (for instance those who have promised a pro-life position, but then not doing anything about abortion when they had a majority in Congress and the presidency) type of candidates being elected. I'm ready for a real leader with the manhood to lead our country out of the mess we're in. Ron Paul's record, consistency, integrity, and commitment to principle is so unlike anything we've seen. How is it that we as believers do not take him seriously and give him a serious and honest consideration? In my estimation, we're derelict not to."

Researching Ron Paul

Have you ever wondered why I post videos about Ron Paul on a blog devoted to Christianity?  Well, I'll tell ya - it's because my beloved & I both believe Ron Paul to be the most consistently godly man in politics.  If you're one of those who believe that he must be outspoken about his Christian beliefs, this may surprise you, because other than references here & there to his Christianity, you won't hear him say much.  That's because rather than exploiting his Christian beliefs for political benefit, he simply lives out his faith, both privately & publically.  For us, this is a bonus, not a detriment; whereas, we are completely turned off by politicians who talk a good game about family & faith while living hypocritical lives.  So, we think Christians need to pay more attention to him.  We firmly believe that Americans would support him more if they would cease being sheep & simply spend their time researching Paul's views & voting history for themselves, rather than relying on the mainstream media (including Fox News) for their information.  That's how I came to love him myself.  Michael told me during the last election that he was the best man.  I didn't take his word for it; I didn't take the media's word for it that he wasn't.  I spent hours upon hours watching videos & reading about him from unbiased sources.  And in doing so, it didn't take me much time to see that he was, indeed, the best man.  And he still is.  So, in that spirit, I give you more Ron Paul videos to help in your research.  A final thought:  if you, like so many others, erroneously believe Ron Paul to be "anti-Israel", you'll want to start with the bottom video.  That'll set you straight!  ;-)

Status Quo or Ron Paul

For those who keep complaining about the status quo, I have one thing to say:  Stop voting for the status quo or stop complaining!  If you, like we, are sick of such, sick of pandering candidates who renege on their word, sick of candidates getting drunk on their own power trips, sick of candidates who vow to uphold the Constitution & then spend all of their term ripping it to shreds, then you have one choice before you.  Ron Paul.

A Christian View of the Debt Crisis

The following is a very well-written letter from CASE (Christians for A Sustainable Economy) that I believe needs to be read by all.  You can see the list of co-founders & signatories here & sign it yourself here.

"Dear President Obama, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner,

Recently, in the midst of the debt-ceiling crisis, a group calling themselves the “Circle of Protection,” led by Jim Wallis of the activist group Sojourners, met with you and your staff to claim that biblical mandates preclude limits to federal programs for low-income people. The Circle includes representatives of the National Association of Evangelicals, Bread for the World, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Wallis and the “Circle of Protection” do not speak for all Christians. However laudable their intentions, the consequence of their action is to provide a religious imprimatur for big government and sanctify federal welfare programs that are often ineffective — even counterproductive. Contrary to their founding “Statement,” we do not need to “protect programs for the poor.” We need to protect the poor themselves. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect them from the very programs that ostensibly serve the poor, but actually demean the poor, undermine their family structures and trap them in poverty, dependency and despair for generations. Such programs are unwise, uncompassionate, and unjust.

Let no one be deceived: the Budget Control Act may resolve the immediate cash-flow crisis, but the long-term crisis of government insolvency remains. The Act does not touch the mountain of debt we are preparing to pass on to our families; in fact, the purpose of the Act is to permit our leaders to make that mountain larger, by raising the debt ceiling. This debt will only impoverish even more Americans. So we ask that you meet with us, Christians for A Sustainable Economy (case4america.org). We believe the poor of this generation and generations to come are best served by policies that promote economic freedom and growth, that encourage productivity and creativity in every able person, and that wisely steward our common resources for generations to come. All Americans – especially the poor – are best served by sustainable economic policies for a free and flourishing society. When creativity and entrepreneurship are rewarded, the yield is an increase of productivity and generosity.

Compassion and charity for “the least of these” is an essential expression of our faith, flowing from a heart inclined towards God. And just as the love of God frees us for a more abundant life, so our charity must go beyond mere material provision to meet the deeper needs of the poor. To suggest that Matthew 25 – or any commandment concerning Christian charity – can be met through wealth redistribution is to obscure these truths. We encourage you to consider the whole counsel of scripture, which urges not only compassion and provision for the poor but also the perils of debt and the importance of wise stewardship.

To the question, “What would Jesus cut?”, we add the question, “Whom would Jesus indebt?” The Good Samaritan did not use a government credit card.

The government plays an important role, and communities do need the support of social safety nets for those in need. A Christian approach to the budget crisis considers the interests of the poor. All of us suffer when our nation exchanges wisdom, prudence, liberty and faithful stewardship for the chronic unemployment of a stagnant economy and the enslaving power of debt.

Both parties have failed. Our common resources have been stewarded unwisely and the United States is trillions of dollars in debt. We have reached a breaking point. Fiscal recklessness must stop. Just as we should not balance the budget “on the backs of the poor,” so we should not balance the budget on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Even as the debt-ceiling crisis passes, the long-term challenge of making federal spending wise and effective remains. We recommend three steps:

1. Correctly identify the problem.

The debt disaster is a spending issue. Tax revenues are finite, while the growth of government is unceasing. By any measure, federal spending has skyrocketed, from $2.9 trillion in 2008 to $3.8 trillion in 2011. We presently borrow over forty cents of every dollar we spend. While increasing taxes will generate additional revenues and reduce the deficit in the short term, it will ultimately harm the economy, constrain economic growth, and hasten the out-of-control growth of government. To give more money to Washington is to give the sickness the remedy it requests. The last thing the government needs is more money. It needs to cease its unwise and profligate spending.

2. Put narrow political interests aside.

Entrenched political interests stagnate reform. Every cent of government spending must be on the table, for ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ priorities alike. The stated intention of helping the needy does not make poverty programs sacrosanct. Some of these programs ‘serve’ the poor so well that they make more people poor and keep them in poverty longer. Stop the demagoguery against those who propose substantive changes to entitlements and social welfare programs.

3. Lead for the long term.

Americans yearn for, and deeply appreciate, leaders who embrace a burden of responsibility that transcends the implications of the next election cycle. While we agree that budgets are moral documents insofar as they reflect values and decisions for which we are morally culpable, long-term budget plans are morally meaningful promises we make to later generations. Right now we are morally failing our children and grandchildren by selling their future flourishing for our present comfort. In hard times, true leaders make hard decisions. We encourage you to put aside political calculations and the pressures of special interest groups to make commitments that are in the long-term interest of the American economy and the American people.

People of faith come in all stripes, and differ on many points. Jim Wallis and the “Circle of Protection” are but one perspective. We believe they have not fully represented the large and diverse community of Christian faith, as you will see by the list of signatories below,* and have conveyed less than the full biblical witness and the counsel it provides in the current crisis. As such, even as you met with the “Circle of Protection,” we request a meeting as well. If you are committed to hearing voices of faith, even those that challenge your policy priorities, we hope you will meet with us.

As Christians striving for a sustainable economy, one that will lift the poor out of poverty and dependency on government (learn more at case4america.org), we thank you for considering our message – and for your service to our nation. May God bless America, and return us soon to wise stewardship of our common resources."

A Little Political Debunking

I've seen some weird statements that Herman Cain or Michele Bauchmann are "Tea Party darlings".  See, I have a hard time processing how that can be because the whole Tea Party movement began with a money bomb for Ron Paul on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party during the 2008 election.  If you're a "Tea Partier" with a choice between Ron Paul & someone else, you choose Ron Paul.  Period.  But, because these two are getting some press, I'm going to take a little time & debunk them for you.  'Cause let me tell you, they can talk a good game, but their record shows that they are not what they pretend!  Thomas E. Woods is a great historian, so this is an excellent place to begin your education.  Don't take his word as Gospel, but use this as a jumping-off place.  And, by all means, do not just rely on the media for your information . . . including "fair & unbiased" Fox News!

First up, learn about the trouble with Herman Cain:



As for Michele, you can read about her voting record here, which may be quite illuminating for those who believe her to be a "Constitutional Conservative".

And finally, watch below for a quick synopsis - meant for the Iowa voters heading to the straw poll, but more than applicable to the entire American constituency - of why Ron Paul is the most qualified man for the presidency:

Ron Paul Wants to Legalize Marijuana . . . And I Support Him!

*Sorry for the departure from my normal topics.  I try to refrain from political discussions because they just quite frankly anger me, but I feel this must be said.

First off, I owe you an apology. Like Ron Paul's opponents, I've written a sensationalized title to grab your attention. Now that I have it, let me also offer an admission. If you were previously unaware of this fact, let me assure you that I am not a raging drug-head. As a matter of fact, I've never even been tempted to consume a single drug. I was 20 before I tasted alcohol for the first time – watched over by my friend's parents – & have never once been inebriated. So, if I'm not a partaker of drugs – & quite frankly find their use & abuse to be idiotic – why in the world would I support an effort to legalize marijuana? For liberty's sake, that's why.

Let's get one thing straight. Ron Paul has not – I repeat, NOT – introduced a bill to legalize marijuana. Oh, that's what you'll see in the headlines (imagine – propaganda from the media!), but that's more than a little disingenuous & misleading. Ron Paul, along with other members of the House, has put forth a bill to "end state/federal conflicts over marijuana policy, reprioritize federal resources, and provide more room for states to do what is best for their own citizens."  In other words, these representatives desire to follow the Constitution by stripping the federal government of misappropriated power & properly restoring that power to the states.

Why is this so important? Aside from the fact that it honors the Constitution? Well, you also have the fact that the "War on Drugs" has officially been declared a failure & is yet one more drain on our already bankrupt country. Then you have the fact that it's yet another freedom that the federal government has taken away from American citizens. I can hear those wheels turning; I know what you're thinking, & the answer is an emphatic "No"! I am not advocating the use of marijuana or any other drug. That's not the point, & we completely fail to see the real issue when we get caught up in inflammatory accusations & pat answers. The crux of the issue is this: the Constitution clearly gives the power of such decisions to the states, not the federal government. Ron Paul doesn't want to legalize marijuana; he wants the states to make that decision one by one & for the federal government to get their grubby paws out of our personal lives. I, for one, agree.

The ramifications for this kind of thinking are far-reaching. The list of areas into which the federal government has unconstitutionally spread its power is too long to list. We already have regulations that restrict our choices in dairy, childbirth, speech, light bulbs, education, produce, religious practices, healthcare, housing, bearing arms, & private property. And don't get me started on money! Our "leaders" have decided for us how much money we can make, how much of that must go to the public (via the unconstitutional federal income tax), & how much we must pay into Social Security (which was supposed to be temporary, & from which most of us will never see payments). I'm sure you can think of more examples. Personally, I could go on & on, but I'm going to exhibit some control here, lest I stray from my point. Which is this: the Constitution gave power to sovereign states to decide what was best for their citizens. That power was never granted to the federal government, but over the years, we have acquiesced to an increasingly enlarged bureaucracy. As a result, we have an out-of-control federal government that strives to micromanage every portion of our private lives. This has to stop. In my humble opinion, Ron Paul is the only person possessing the integrity, knowledge of history, & proven record – as well as the utter disdain for seeking out popularity through votes & verbal quips – to put a stop to these intrusions. That's why we supported him in 2008. That's why we support him now.