Dobson Is Right About Giuliani

Link

As a conservative Baptist pastor for more than thirty years and a former executive director for the Moral Majority, my roots in the Religious Right run pretty deep. However, over the last several years, I have become a consistent critic of the Religious Right, as faithful readers of this column already know.

The main objection I have with the Religious Right is they have (for the most part) given President George W. Bush (and the Republican Party in general) a complete and total pass. Over the past nearly seven years now, Bush and GOP leaders have betrayed most every principle that I ever understood the Religious Right to stand for. Yet, our national Christian leaders (and local pastors throughout America) have been content to look the other way and say nothing. Or worse yet, they have actually defended Bush's liberal, big-spending, anti-freedom, and unconstitutional ways. In a nutshell, for a seat at the king's table, the Religious Right sold out its principles.

Another criticism I have with our national Christian leaders is the seeming shallowness they display. About the only thing a Republican politician has to do to curry favor with our illustrious conservative Christian leaders is to say that they oppose abortion and homosexuality. Whether they actually mean it or intend to actually do anything about it after winning an election doesn't seem to matter to a tinker's dam, however. No, it is actually worse than that. Our Christian leaders do not even seem to understand how to deal with these issues in a constitutional republic.

For example, pro-life congressmen such as Ron Paul of Texas are not "acceptable" to many conservative Christians, because Paul actually wants to honor his oath of office to "support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which means he is not prepared to cede to the federal government that which the Constitution has given to the states. This means that Paul understands that the proper way to handle the abortion issue is to pass a "Sanctity of Life" bill, which would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies (thereby giving them complete governmental protection under the law) and would exempt the issue from the jurisdiction of the Court. This would have the effect of immediately overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand as we know it. However, not only did the entire Republican leadership in both houses of Congress and President George W. Bush not support Dr. Paul when he introduced such a bill, neither did the leaders of the Religious Right.

In fact, as a whole, the Religious Right continues to ignore Ron Paul's candidacy, even though he would probably be the best friend that conservative Christians ever had in the White House. Alas, however, there seems to be a giant disconnect in the thinking of many conservative Christians as to the primacy of constitutional government and how it relates to religious liberty. As a result, many conservative Christians continue to support big government policies, when they are promulgated by Republicans.

(Please see my column on this subject at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070227.html )

Sadly, I cannot think of a prominent national conservative Christian leader who has dared to follow the courageous example of the prophet Nathan and say to King Bush, "Thou art the man." Instead, they have served as lackeys and doormats for President Bush. In doing so, they have lost much credibility, and dare I say, honor.

It even grieves me to say that should the presidential race next year come down to Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, many conservative Christians would support Giuliani. This is in spite of the fact that Giuliani is not only as bad as Clinton in virtually every area of significance, but, in many ways, is actually worse. Any Christian who would argue that his or her convictions would not allow them to vote for Clinton would have to turn around and surrender those very same convictions in order to vote for Giuliani. In other words, in a Clinton-Giuliani race, there is no "lesser of two evils."

Therefore, since I have been critical of the compromise of our Christian leaders, it is only fair that I would commend them when appropriate. Accordingly, I want to praise James Dobson's recent statements that he could not support either Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or John McCain (albeit I don't believe his rejection of Thompson and McCain are necessarily for the right reasons).

Regarding Giuliani, Dobson said, "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's--Dobson's?--choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran--or if worse comes to worst--not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

Hooray! It is about time that some of our national conservative Christian leaders began telling the truth about these phony conservatives in the Republican Party. However, Dobson needs to keep going and list the liberal Mitt Romney, and also CFR member (along with Thompson), womanizer, and elitist Newt Gingrich as unacceptable candidates.

Giuliani is especially revolting. Dobson is right to say he will vote third party or not vote at all rather than vote for Giuliani. After my recent exposé on Giuliani (see http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070921.html ), numerous residents of New York City wrote me to express their agreement with my assertions.

I seldom reprint the responses of readers. However, one New Yorker wrote the following, which seemed to reflect the feelings of most every New Yorker who responded to my column:

"I lived in NYC for most of my life. Giuliani was the worst mayor the city has ever had. I and millions of New Yorkers [are] well aware of Giuliani's duplicitous, mean, autocratic, and just downright scary personality. His father was a small time mafia enforcer that did prison time. Rudy has many of his father's characteristics.

"Thank you for helping to expose this Hitler in waiting. As mayor of NYC, he trashed and spat upon people's rights, especially minorities. He inflamed and divided the peoples of NYC. He opened the city coffers to his corporate crony plunderers and left the city with a monumental deficit.

"Many New Yorkers have been blogging for years, trying to alert the people to this madman's dictatorial and corrupt ways. Thanks for your help."

This email response was typical of the many I received from New Yorkers.

It is high time for each and every one of us who claims to love freedom and liberty, who claims to appreciate our history and heritage, and who claims a desire to perpetuate a free and independent America for our posterity to stop promoting the insane "lesser of two evils" mantra and to start supporting only those men and women who have PROVEN they deserve our support, party or political label notwithstanding.

Dobson is right about Giuliani. I only wish he had been willing to tell the truth about one George W. Bush. Maybe then we would not be in the mess we are in today, because Bush is the precursor to Giuliani and Clinton. And those who supported and fawned over Dubya only waxed the skis for Giuliani and Clinton.

Giuliani Is Everyone's Worst Nightmare

Link

Former New York City Mayor and Republican Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said this week that he was "liberals' worst nightmare." However, the truth is, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

That Rudy Giuliani is currently trying to cast himself as a conservative is beyond laughable--it is hilarious. This is a man who is unabashedly pro-abortion. He has been seen walking down Fifth Avenue with thousands of homosexuals demanding "gay rights." He himself is a cross-dresser. He has had numerous marriages and only God knows how many sexual affairs. He has been one of the country's most radical proponents of gun control. He made New York a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and is a strong proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens. As a prosecutor, his abuse of power and disregard for law are legendary. (See http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts208.html )

In addition, Rudy Giuliani is a senior partner in the law firm that "represents CITGO, the oil company controlled by Venezuela's anti-American and terrorist-supporting ruler Hugo Chavez." Giuliani's law firm also acts "as the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra, the Spanish firm that has been granted the right to operate a toll road in the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) project."

(Please read Cliff Kincaid's entire column for more on Giuliani's shady and untoward activities at http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff149.htm )

Yes, my friends, the umbilical cord connecting the SPP, NAFTA Superhighway and burgeoning North American Union is also connected to Rudy Giuliani.

Yet, Rudy Giuliani wants people to believe that he is "liberals' worst nightmare"? Who is he kidding? Giuliani is a liberal. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is worse than a liberal. He is a liberal that likes to hurt people. I tell you the truth, Rudy Giuliani scares me far more than Hillary Clinton does. Far more. I'll say it right here: if the 2008 Presidential election comes down to Hillary vs. Giuliani, Hillary is the "lesser of two evils." That's how bad Giuliani is.

Any Christian who would vote for Rudy Giuliani needs to check out his or her salvation. And before a conservative could vote for Giuliani, he would have to surrender every conviction and principle he ever held.

As for the Republican Party, if it nominates Rudy Giuliani as its Presidential candidate next year, conservatism will be forever vanquished from the Party. George W. Bush has already just about destroyed conservatism within the GOP. A Giuliani nomination would finish the job.

Rudy Giuliani likes to paint himself as being tough on terrorism. The truth is, Rudy Giuliani is a warmonger. A Giuliani Presidency would mean an expansion of military interventionism and preemptive war like you can't imagine. One can call me what one wants, but I am warning the American people, just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller tried to warn the German people about Hitler: Rudy Giuliani is a monster. Anyone who is paying attention knows this is true.

For example, just two days ago, Giuliani urged expanding NATO to include Australia, India, Israel, Japan, and Singapore, along with "a whole group of others that we could put on that list." As originally designed, NATO's purpose was to counterbalance the former Soviet Union's influence in Europe. However, Giuliani wants to expand NATO into a "global body." He also said he wants to "redouble" the war in Afghanistan. He further said the U.S. should consider the possibility of a "large war with a nation state." So, could Giuliani be planning a preemptive "large war" with other countries? One can only wonder.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks that George W. Bush is obsessed with domestic spying and surveillance, just wait until Giuliani becomes President. You can count on him pressing his anti-Fourth Amendment and anti-Second Amendment agendas to the nth degree through all sorts of executive orders and signing statements.

You can also expect amnesty for illegal aliens to be quickly achieved under a Giuliani administration, along with the completion of the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, this will also be the case if Hillary is elected President, except that if Hillary is leading the charge, many will oppose it; whereas if Giuliani leads the charge, they won't.

This brings up the other thing that makes a Giuliani Presidency so dangerous: the total lack of resistance that rank-and-file conservatives (including Christians) have demonstrated when Republicans control the White House. Absent resistance from his own party and from grassroots conservatives, a Giuliani administration would be left free to perpetrate radical fascist and imperialistic policies completely unfettered.

Everything about Rudy Giuliani smacks of fraud, indecency, greed, and power-lust. Even the wave of 9/11, which Giuliani is riding to the Presidential election, is fraught with duplicity. In fact, New York City firefighters are so fearful their former mayor might succeed in his quest to become President that they came out against his candidacy in a dramatic video. I urge all my readers to watch this moving video presentation. See it at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3367581&page=1

Yes, Rudy Giuliani is a nightmare all right. But not just for liberals. He is a nightmare for conservatives, Christians, independents, constitutionalists, and for people the world over. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani is a threat to freedom, constitutional government, the rule of law, traditional morality, and to national sovereignty and independence. As I said, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

Thompson Surge Means Conservatives Are Desperate

Direct Link

Many conservatives (including Christian conservatives) seem to be jumping on the Fred Thompson bandwagon. As far as Republican presidential contenders go, the biggest loser of the Thompson surge is Mitt Romney. Many conservatives were supporting Romney only because they perceived him as being the best chance to beat Rudy Giuliani. A Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani presidential election is a conservative's worst nightmare. Romney has the charm and money and is now saying the "right" things. Hence, he has enjoyed moderate support in the early goings of this campaign season. However, Romney's liberal track record is very disconcerting to conservatives. In their hearts, conservatives cannot trust Romney.

The entrance of Fred Thompson in the presidential race immediately took a toll on the Romney campaign. Romney's support is dropping like the temperature in northern Idaho in the wintertime. That trend will probably continue, as more conservatives catch the Thompson wave.

The problem is, Thompson is not a conservative. Worse still (for the GOP), Thompson cannot beat Hillary in a general election. Mark my words, if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee next November, Hillary Clinton is your next president.

For that matter, I see only one Republican contender who might be able to beat Hillary in the 2008 general election: Ron Paul. Yes, you read it right. Ron Paul.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, conservative Christians will stay home or vote third party. (It is past time for conservative Christians to abandon the GOP, anyway. I encourage readers to check out the Constitution Party as a viable alternative. See http://www.constitutionparty.com/ ) A Republican cannot win the White House without widespread support from evangelical Christians. And Giuliani will never have widespread support from evangelical Christians.

Newt Gingrich is toying with the idea of entering the race, but the truth is out about Newt. His infidelities, his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and his past betrayal of conservative principles precede him. Newt is damaged goods. He has little chance of obtaining the Republican nomination, and even if he did, he has no chance of beating Hillary. None. Zero. Zilch.

The only Republican with the potential to pull an upset victory over Clinton is Ron Paul. He is extremely popular among constitutionalists, independents, and many Christians (including me). He is doing very well in fundraising and on the Internet. And if Paul's message was given a fair hearing, evangelical Christians and traditional conservatives would come to support him.

The only reason that some conservative Christians do not already support Ron Paul is because they, themselves, do not understand constitutional government. Years of Republican chicanery and compromise have taken a toll on conservatives to the point that many of them don't understand truth when they see it. However, this could change. The more people learn about Ron Paul and constitutional government, the more they like him and it.

On the other hand, the more people learn about Fred Thompson, the more they will dislike him. As with Gingrich, Thompson is a member of the sinister cabal, the CFR, whose principle purpose for existence seems to be the construction of one-world government and the destruction of U.S. independence and sovereignty. This means Thompson will do nothing to stop illegal immigration. (See http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109050083/1002 )

He will do nothing to stand in the way of the emerging North American Union, and the NAFTA Superhighway, and he will continue the push for globalization.

In addition, Fred Thompson is the personification of a Washington insider-lobbyist. Thompson was a lobbyist for twenty years before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He represented organizations like the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association and deposed Haitian President Aristide. He continued lobbying after he left the Senate, including representing a British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died from asbestos exposure. In fact, Thompson's presidential campaign is literally overflowing with advisors and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296339,00.html ) If Thompson was elected President, he would be the country's first Lobbyist-in-Chief.

On the life issue, Fred Thompson's record is clearly pro-choice. In 1991 and 1992, Thompson was a paid lobbyist for the pro-abortion organization, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. He also lobbied against the Republican Party's pro-life plank. According to Terry Jeffrey, "[W]hen Fred Thompson was in the United States Senate, both times he ran for the Senate he ran as a pro-choice candidate."

One of the Religious Right's most respected leaders, Richard Viguerie, recently said this about Fred Thompson: "Fred Thompson's record may appear to be 'conservative,' but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President."

However, there is another glaring (and I mean glaring) reason why any Republican presidential contender outside Ron Paul will not defeat Hillary next November: every other Republican presidential contender supports the Iraq war. That means every one of them (except Ron Paul) is completely out of touch with over two-thirds of the American electorate. And the longer our troops keep dying in Iraq, the more out of touch the GOP will become with a vast majority of the American people.

President Bush has already made it clear that he intends for American troops to remain in Iraq for years--if not decades--to come. And it also seems clear that the GOP presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) plan to follow Bush's madness.

Republicans need to wake up to reality: people are sick of George Bush, and they are sick of the Iraq war. Good grief! In less time than our troops have been in Iraq, our men and women in uniform defeated the combined forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy during World War II. In Iraq, we have not been able to secure the city of Baghdad.

When America's top military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, was asked if all the efforts in Iraq--including the latest surge--make America safer, his answer was an astounding, "I don't know." That is an incredible statement. After more than four years of combat in a country approximately the size of Texas, more than one-half trillion dollars in cost, and the sacrifice of thousands of American lives, our top military commander cannot honestly say that America is any safer. Yet, Bush says we are "winning," and he wants our troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I dare say that by the time November 2008 rolls around, support for the Iraq war could be so low that the Republican Party may be lucky to even be competitive in the national elections, no matter who their candidate is (unless it is Ron Paul). This is because every single one of the other GOP presidential contenders (including Fred Thompson) is on record as supporting a continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq. In addition, most of them are on record as supporting an expansion of the war into other parts of the Middle East. (Interestingly enough, however, none of them wants to discuss--much less threaten--the real sponsors of terrorism: Russia and China.)

That Fred Thompson is surging to the position of Republican presidential frontrunner means that conservatives are desperate. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be desperate enough to look at their own erroneous policies. Neither are they willing to look at the recipe for their own recovery: principled, constitutional government.

I already hear the fat lady warming up.

Top of Center - Ron Paul versus Rudy Giuliani Analysis

So many of the right wingers just don't get this concept, or they want to ignore it.

O'Reilly can't wear Olbermann's shorts.

Spoken by a true American.

Bill O'Reilly is such a shill

He never conducts a debate that lets the other person finish their thoughts.



Go Ron Paul.

Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism

Ever since 9/11/01 we have been at war with terrorism, or so we thought. The below video proves how the Bush White House made plans for invasion of Iraq 10 days into the administration. Of course, this could never happen without a "New Pearl Harbor" as defined by the Project for a New American Century written prior to Bush taking office. Interesting, they say in the fall of 2000 we need a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to rebuild our defenses. In the fall of 2001, 9/11, interesting I have heard 9/11 many times referred to as the 2nd Pearl Harbor. Ahhh, what am I thinking it HAS to be coincidence, otherwise I would be a conspiracy theorist of the governments official story about 9/11. Hey wait, aren't these the same people that wrote that document? hmmm, I am no math genius but sometimes 1 + 1 really does equal 2....

Ron Paul: Our Power, Our Responsibility

Set to some rockin music.....



This is our country, get mad and let's take it back.

9/11, Six Years Later By Chuck Baldwin

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070911.html

Contrary to the claims of President Bush, the United States is not only just as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as it was in 2001, it is more vulnerable. This is due directly to the blunders and negligence of the Bush administration.

For one thing, the U.S. borders and ports remain wide open. There has been no serious effort on behalf of the federal government to thwart the invasion (and that is exactly what it is) of illegal aliens across our southern border.

Not only has President Bush done nothing to secure our borders, he has just last week opened the door for Mexican trucks to come unimpeded across our southern border. These trucks will have free access to our entire country. Can one imagine the amount of drug trafficking, illegal aliens, and even potential terrorists that will be smuggled across our borders in these trucks? Plus, think of the safety concerns these drivers and trucks will bring to America's highways.

In addition, the Bush administration has done nothing to slow the flow of legal immigration from countries that our own State Department identifies as "terrorist" nations. Virtually every Muslim country in the Middle East routinely sends students and professionals to the U.S. via student visas, work visas, etc. They even serve in America's armed forces and in our security agencies. This is insane!

Yet, President Bush would have us believe that he is fighting a "war on terrorism" by invading Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. However, the war in Iraq has done little to fight terrorism, and has done much to assist it.

Instead of invading a country with no ties to 9/11, we should have followed Ron Paul's advice. Congress should have passed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, and sent our forces on a specific and narrow mission to take out bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation." This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

A few days following the attacks on 9/11, and drawing from our own history and Constitution, Congressman Paul proposed the following to his fellow members of Congress:

"If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?

"The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.

"Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.

"Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented."

Had we followed Dr. Paul's counsel, Osama bin Laden and most of his al-Qaeda terrorists would no doubt be dead, our troops would not be bogged down in another no-win war in Iraq, and America would not be hated and despised by almost everyone in the world as it is today.

Following the attacks on 9/11, the world (for the most part) held America in sympathy. Therefore, a narrowly focused, constitutional, and direct reprisal would have been completely understood and supported by virtually all of the world's leaders and peoples. As it is now, the United States is viewed around the world as an imperialistic and warmongering monster. Not to mention the kind of resentment and animosity our invasion of Iraq has produced among Muslim people throughout the world. In fact, our invasion and occupation of Iraq is al-Qaeda's biggest recruitment tool. As a result, there are actually more al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq today than there were before we invaded Iraq.

Plus, just as Ron Paul warned, the Bush administration and a compliant congress have used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to assault the constitutional liberties of the American people. The USA Patriot Act has all but demolished the 4th Amendment, and has turned America into a virtual surveillance society. As far as liberty is concerned, we have far more to fear from Washington, D.C., than from Baghdad.

George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most dangerous blunders of all time. I am not sure that America will fully recover from this debacle for the next half century. When one considers the moral failures, the economic ramifications, the strain on military readiness, the rise of anti-American hatred, the potential for future terrorism, and the loss of America's allegiance to "just war" philosophy surrounding the Iraq war, the total damage to our country is incalculable.

It makes one wonder whether the 9/11 attackers did not win after all.

9/11, War and Christian actions

Today marks the 6th anniversary of the most tragic day in United States history. A day that shifted the opinions and views of everyone in this free country. Since that day we have been fighting the "war on terror", a war that some have said could last 100 years. In essence, we can never win. Until recently, I bought into the right wing line of thinking. Support this war or you are not patriotic, or even more diabolical from the "Christian Right", support this president or you are not with God. I am beginning to understand what I think the true meaning is of separation of church and state. I have witnessed how easy it is to dupe a large group of people all in the name of God and Godly values. As I have awoken out of my slumber I have been able to see through this fog of control and manipulation that many in the Christian community have used to form and mold our opinions on issue we know nothing about. I have learned that I can be a christian and not agree with the Bush administration and all the right wing propaganda that is thrown at us. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I have been able to become a better Christian as I have learned how important it is to be a follower of Christ. You know, the one that said
"Mat 22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment. Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Do you think he was talking the folks that live next to you or maybe was he talking about all of our neighbors in this world that we have to share? The same guy that said "Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,". Remember him?
I am afraid that too many Christians have simplified Christian living to simply saying a pray and letting others handle the details. We have a "christian" president, so let him preemtively strike a nation that has done no harm to us. God must be with him, right? Too many Christians ignore the love that Jesus requires us to share with all people no matter what religion they are a part of. Does that mean all religions go to heaven? My faith tells me no and I will espouse to that, however, even if a person is going to hell it doesn't mean we need to make this life on earth hell before they get there.
I am begging any Christian out there to be smart with the sources of information that you are getting. I have learned that just because a source seems to be defending you and your values doesn't not mean they, 1. are out for your best interests or 2. are telling you the truth. I am finding this in most media that will not be critical of Bush and his administration. Most of these shows have an agenda and it is to support the right wing through all its lies and scandals, and there are many.
We are to judge the fruit of our Christian leaders, this presidents fruit speaks for itself. The sad part is that so many in the Christian Right are so dependent politically on the Right Wing to succeed that they seem to have lost their way and sold out. This is the reason why we has Christians need to understand politics and influence them without politics influencing us. Ultimately, the powers of evil are bound to creep in.

We need to take back our constitution

Or we could all be another Jose Padilla.

We need to understand history

let's take back this country before it's too late.

The Ron Paul Revolution continued

He has it right, the laughs during the questions just shows how tasteless FoxNews and their agenda machine is.

The People want him,

the media needs to stop spinning this.

Ron Paul : When in the course of human events...

We need more rallies like this

Say no to the Real ID act no matter what happens.