Search This Blog

Why Christians Should be Against the War in Iraq

by Matt Miller 1/20/08

The President has given many reasons for going to war with Iraq, but none of them are Biblically or constitutionally valid. Some people have said that we have good reasons to continue to occupy Iraq, but these aren’t Biblically or constitutionally valid either.

1. There was some talk in the beginning about connections between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission made the determination that this is not the case. Colon Powell admitted that this was not the case. Even the President has abandoned this claim. Iraq has never participated in any terrorist attack against the United States. General Petraeus has admitted that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war.

2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Should every nation that has WMD be violently overthrown? Is this a Biblical or constitutional mandate? Psalm 37:7-9 says, “Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.” Read also I Peter 3:10-14.

3. Iraq violated U.N. resolutions. But the corrupt and hypocritical U.N. violates its own resolutions all the time (e.g. the oil for food program). Let their “peacekeeping forces” be the ones to enforce their rules at the expense of their citizens. The United States should have gotten out of this wicked organization a long time ago. The American people should decide what America does, not some conglomeration of nations.

4. There is the idea that the war in Iraq makes the U.S. safer. A GOP slogan was, “If we don’t fight them over there then we will have to fight them over here.” Is that a Christian thing to say? Does only the fear that a nation will attack the U.S. justify a preemptive attack? That sounds like the same justification that a terrorist would use to attack the U.S. The Bible teaches that we should not rely on military might for our protection, but the Lord (Psalm 118:8, 9, Ephesians 6:12). This not to say that we should never bring lawbreakers to justice (because the Bible authorizes and even commands this), but military force should only be used against those who have violated U.S. laws.

5. There is the idea that it was good to bring down Sadaam Hussein because he was a brutal dictator who killed his own people. I reject the idea that U.S. should be the policeman of the world. I find in Scripture no Biblical mandate for this. This is a matter that, as far as military force goes, should be left up to God and the Iraqi people. How bad does a nation have to get before it becomes justifiable to attack it? What Sadaam Hussein has done is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are doing in the U.S., which is brutally murdering 3500 innocent unborn babies per day. Would you advocate a violent overthrow our government because of this? We should remove the planks from our own eyes first.

6. There is the idea that a democracy would bring stability to the region. Does the U.S. have a mandate from God in the Scriptures to take down governments and set up democracies? Our nation was founded on Christian principles by Christians. We are a strong nation because God gave the Founding Fathers the wisdom to establish our Republic (it is not actually a democracy). We are losing our strength because we have turned our backs on God. Do you really think that this “democracy” will work in a nation which is mostly Muslim and contains three warring factions? Jeremiah 51:9 says, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth up to heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.”

7. There is the idea that it is unpatriotic or disrespectful to say things against the people who are fighting in Iraq for our freedom to dissent. Being against the war in Iraq is in no way disrespecting the people who are fighting in Iraq and trying to make the best of a bad situation. People fighting in Iraq are not giving us the freedom to dissent, but Almighty God is. It is true that there are times in which the sacrifice of lives is necessary for freedom, but that doesn’t mean that all wars that America has engaged in were justified or helped the cause of freedom. I have relatives and friends in the military who are in Iraq and I don’t want them to die unnecessarily. Is that wish unpatriotic or disrespectful in any way? The distraction of Iraq has left us powerless to accomplish the real patriotic mission which is to capture Osama Bin Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders. Being against the war in Iraq does not disrespect the families of those who died on September 11th. Dividing our forces and not going all out with all our military might to capture Osama Bin Laden is what has denied justice to them. God has allowed our government to make foolish choices because we have turned our backs on Him.

8. There is the idea that we should be for the war in Iraq because the Democrats and the news media are against it or because Republicans are for it. These are ridiculous arguments. Each person should think for himself. If the Democrats were really steadfastly against the war, they could have withdrawn funding for it and it would be over. But instead they have attempted to bargain with the Bush administration about this to get the goodies that they want, while fooling their anti-war constituency into thinking that they are really doing something to stop it.

The Bible specifically warns God’s people to stay away from Babylon. There are evil spirits there. The reason given for one to stay away is so that one does not share in its sins (Revelation 18:4).

Remember that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most of the prominent Democrats voted in favor of the war in Iraq in the beginning. They only changed their position (or tried to take both sides) when it became politically advantageous for them to do so. But Ron Paul has always voted against the war in Iraq for the same reason he is against legalized abortion—he doesn’t want innocent people to die unnecessarily. He stood on his convictions and went against his own party.

Ron Paul is running on the Republican ballot. If you agree with him, join the revolution!

An Open Letter to the AFA


I Thessalonians 5:21 (NIV) says, “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”

I decided to send this message to everyone who ***** sent this to because I believe that the American Family Association has (possibly mistakenly) misrepresented one of the candidates positions on some of the issues in its Voter’s Guide (see the link below in the original email). I’m sorry that this is so long, but it is very important.


In regards to the statement “Supports a national Human Life Amendment”, under Ron Paul’s name it says, “NO”. This is factually incorrect.

Dr. Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation which, if passed, would have nullified Roe v. Wade. Read the Sanctity Life Act of 2007. In Dr. Paul’s opinion, this type legislation is a better and easier way of bringing about criminalization of abortion than a constitutional amendment. Read more about this here and here.

Nowhere on his website does he say that he is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. In fact, this statement appears:

“The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.”

The other candidates take compromising positions on the abortion issue. (See here, and here, and here.) You don’t have to worry about Rudy anymore. He is out of the race now.

Dr. Paul believes that abortions should ALWAYS be ILLEGAL (no exceptions). I can’t find any place where it specifically says what he thinks the punishment for abortion should be, but if you take the Sanctity Life Act of 2007 (it didn’t pass) together with the 14th amendment, a proper interpretation of law would be that the punishment for murdering an unborn baby should be the same as what it is for murdering any other person (this depends on what the laws for murder are in a particular state).


In regards to the statement, “Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman only”, this is factually correct, but not the whole story. I highly recommend carefully reading the link they give as a source for this information. It is very enlightening. The Marriage Protection Act which Ron Paul co-sponsored was in fact signed into law by President Bush.


The AFA voters guide is correct about Dr. Paul’s position on the war in Iraq. He doesn’t want anymore American children to needlessly lose their fathers in this war. I can’t think of anything more pro-family than this. Read my article on why Christians should be against the war in Iraq.


The AFA is a 501(c)(3) organization. This is a completely voluntary agreement (called incorporation) which churches and other organizations can make with the government to receive tax exemptions. But there are restrictions on how much an organization can get involved with politics under 501(c)(3). Some of these restrictions are vaguely worded and subject to interpretation. My church (the Anderson Ferry Church of Christ) has this statement in its own constitution:
“No substantial part of the activities of the Church shall be in the attempting to influence legislation, and the Church shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

I agree that the tax code is very, very, unfair. But we should be careful to not violate the law in this matter. We need to hold ourselves to better standards than the world. Read more here.

If Ron Paul and enough like-minded congressmen and senators were elected, we would never have worry about the IRS “getting after” us. It (the IRS) would be gone immediately. Churches and organizations like the AFA would no longer have to worry about walking the fine line between “religious” and “political” organization. Donations to organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund could go to other important cases.


Ron Paul is a Christian. This article contains his statement of faith.

If you have read this far, thanks for helping me set the record straight.


----- Forwarded Message ----From: AFA ActionAlert Sent: Friday, February 1, 2008 11:06:40 PM
Subject: AFA will not bow down to a threat from a liberal left-wing group

Dear *****,

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has asked that the Internal Revenue Service investigate the American Family Association. Lynn says that AFA has violated IRS rules by distributing a voter’s guide. For years, Rev. Lynn and his Americans United, along with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, have used threats to silence Christians in an attempt to take away their First Amendment rights. The tragedy is that he has been successful in silencing thousands of ministers. Let me make one thing clear to Rev. Lynn and his cohorts. We have no intention of bowing down to his threatening demands. Rev. Lynn is mistaken if he thinks his threat will scare this minister from exercising his First Amendment rights. Lynn has also included a threat to churches. Trying to scare ministers from exercising their rights, Lynn said: "Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity." The AFA Voters Guide was developed by three constitutional lawyers and reviewed by three more constitutional lawyers following Rev. Lynn's threat. All agreed that the voters guide is perfectly legal. The Alliance Defense Fund has offered to represent (free of charge) churches or organizations which distribute the voter's guide and encounter opposition from either Lynn or the IRS.
Take Action!

Show Rev. Lynn that his threats don't scare you by printing and distributing the AFA Voter's Guide.
Click here.
Forward this to family and friends.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution?
Click here to make a donation.

Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association
Donate with confidence to AFA

(gifts are tax-deductible)

Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney


Below are reasons why it is our duty to ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The first four reasons were written by former US rep Elizabeth Holtzman. The last seven were written by me. Click here to send these to your congressman and senators. Then you can paste my other reasons or your own where it says "Add your own personal message to your Congress:"

Here are the reasons for impeachment:

1) The Offense of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War
President Bush and Vice President Cheney intentionally misled the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371.

2) The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops
President Bush and Vice President Cheney failed to provide US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately-armored vehicles and had no serious plan for the aftermath of the war, thus demonstrating a complete disregard for the welfare of the troops and the need for proper governance of a country after occupation. The result has been a never-ending war that will cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 trillion with over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed and over 21,000 wounded.

3) The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties
President Bush and Vice President Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act," Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

4) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law
President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.

These provisions are detailed in "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," by former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman.

Torture is also a violation of the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I would also include the following offenses:

5) The Offense of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq without official declaration of war by Congress as required by the Constitution

The Offense of the use of non-military forces (such as Blackwater) for military purposes which are not accountable under Iraqi law, U.S. law or military law

7) The Offense of the arrest and detention of Jose Padilla, in violation of his constitutional right to trial by jury under the fifth amendment
The vice president also illegally initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.

8) The Offense of authorizing, approving, and signing into law the Patriot Act because it unconstitutionally allows nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight, which is a violation of the fourth amendment

9) The Offense of illegally blocking the implementation of legislation voted into law by Congress for the building of a wall or fence to protect America from terrorists, illegal aliens, and drug smugglers

10) The Offense of not pardoning U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean and for not holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable for lying to Congress about this case

11) The Offense of pardoning Lewis Libby

What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama


A friend wrote this to me:

Will you read this and tell me what you think; mostly because the end, which is not part of the editorial states some "facts" about "the" anti-christ from Revelation. I did not think those details are in the Bible. I looked this up on Snopes and it says this is still being researched, so.............

Subject: What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first
frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps
to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without
Preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadine jad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but
emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it Unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co-values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.


Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think

Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every time.

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:

The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media it!

If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate _____

My response to this is:

Here is more about that note about Obama that you sent me.

As I mentioned, I am not aware of any passage of scripture that says that the Beast will be a Muslim, and also I am certain that there is nothing that says that he will be in his forties. There are some prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by Muslims, but none of them that I am aware of mention a specific religion of those would fulfill it. There are prophecies concerning Arabs, but none of these prophecies that I am aware of are connected to the Beast. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Only a small fraction of Muslims are Arabs. Barack Obama is half black (Kenyan) and half white, not an Arab.

The Beast is not the devil (Revelation 20:10).

Snopes debunks the claim that Obama ever was a Muslim
here. Since Muslims who follow the Koran are just as much against homosexuality as Christians, what Obama says about homosexuality being acceptable disqualifies him from being a true Muslim. He seems to be just another Christian “in name only” to me. Even Hillary voted for the “born alive” bill which banned the killing of babies who are born alive after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. Obama voted against it. The Koran specifically demands justice for those who commit infanticide.

But I guess the article is technically correct in saying that he is of “Muslim desent” since his father had been raised a Muslim. And Daniel 11:37 (KJV) says, “Neither shall he regard the
God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” (I believe the word “God” is incorrectly pluralized in the NIV in this passage.) What about the “nor the desire of women” part?

The argument that many scholars use to say that the Beast will be a Roman is based on the prophecy of the Seventy “Sevens” in Daniel 9. Verse 26 says, “…the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Romans were the ones who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The scholars argue that the pronoun “he” in verse 27 refers to “the ruler” and that it describes end time events. I am open-minded about this.

The article you sent said:

“And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.”

Not all free trade deals are bad, but some of these trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT) have set up international governing bodies which are given power to dictate the terms of our trade policy. It is unconstitutional to take this power out of the hands of Congress and it is a dangerous step towards a “New World Order”. The U.S. should get out of the World Trade Organization.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are members of an organization called Council on Foreign Relations, which supports these trade deals and other “globalization” schemes. Barak Obama’s wife Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which is a similar organization. The CCGA denies that they are affiliated with the CFR, even though they used to be called the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and were formed at about the same time (late 1910s to early 1920s). I saw a video in which Barack Obama addressed the CCGA in which he talked about “solving problems without boundaries” and made other “New World Order” remarks.

There is some Biblical basis for saying that the Beast “will deceive the nations with persuasive language, have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything.”

But this could apply to any of the candidates.

I John 2:22 says that the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ is the antichrist. I John 2:18 says that many antichrists have already come.

By the way, I would be interested to know, is the columnist who wrote this article the same Ken Blackwell we know (former Cincinnati mayor, former Ohio Secretary of State, and Republican candidate for governor in 2006)?


The Limits of How Far From the Mainstream a Candidate Should be Allowed to Go

OK. I guess I should put my two cents worth on this. I have read the Book of Mormon AND Doctrine and Covenants AND The Pearl of Great Price AND the first two Official Declarations. I can tell you that The Book of Mormon contains very little of the doctrine that makes the LDS different from mainstream Protestantism, and the other books contain less than half. These differences are not just “petty ----”. The LDS say that “a living prophet is better than a dead one”. In other words their doctrine is always changing. It doesn’t seem to matter if there is a contradiction. So I say that you are right in saying that most people don’t know what the LDS church teaches. They change their teachings so much, you have to be a very studious student of the LDS in order to always keep up with what they are they are saying. (Does this sound like someone you know?) Even most Mormons don’t know some of the crucial doctrines taught by the LDS church. I should note that there are other sects of Mormonism besides the LDS that are not as far away from mainstream Protestantism. The RLDS, for example, does not believe in polytheism, and denies (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that the Mormon Church ever sanctioned the practice of polygamy.

Despite the major problems I with LDS theology (it is not doctrine unto salvation), I don’t think that Mormons should be discriminated against in the party just because they are Mormons. However, given the recent controversy, and the fact that the current President (prophet) of the LDS has made statements that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest, AND birth defects, any LDS members in the party should have to make it clear that they believe that these statements do not imply that they must take a certain political position on this issue, but are statements which only apply to personal conduct of LDS members. They must be 100% pro-life. This standard should be the same regardless of religious affiliation.

I believe that the CP and the CP of Ohio should adopt a policies (if they have not already) against racism and religious discrimination. That is, no member can be in favor of a law (or interpretation of the Law) which would explicitly deny rights to a person based on the persons race or religion, and that there cannot be any bylaws within the party which would deny a person a position in the party based on race or religion. This does not mean that people can be thrown out of the party for having racist beliefs or preferences for people of a certain religion, because that is a witch-hunt.

Similarly, no member should be allowed to be in favor of a law which would explicitly deny a person’s rights based on whether or not the person is born (this should be worded in such a way to protect all portions of the unborn such as those conceived by rape or incest). Requiring members to be in favor of God-given rights (the ones contained in the Constitution, at least) for all human beings seems like reasonable requirement for membership to me. We all have our beliefs about what scriptures and prophets we hold up above the Constitution (for mainline Protestants, the Bible, for Catholics, the Pope, and for the LDS, their prophets). We may not agree on theology and we may not even agree on whether certain amendments to the Constitution should be in it, but if we are to be called the Constitution Party, all members should all have to at least be in favor of a strict, constructionist’s interpretation of it. Now it is a fact that either unborn babies are persons under the 14th amendment or they are not. If they are, then all members should be required to be 100% pro-life. If they are not, then there is no reason to have any restriction on what a member can believe about abortion. (I guess this is what the National CP has “virtually” done.) It is unreasonable for there to be two totally different ways of interpreting the Constitution in the same party, in this party anyway. This is not just “petty ----”. If what a person holds highest is not allowed under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, then that person should join another party (there is a Mormon party in Utah) or start a new one. This does not mean, for example, that a member should not be allowed to believe that the IRS should be done away with (because of the 16th amendment) because it does not say that there has to be income taxes--only that they are allowed.

It is reasonable for the CP of Ohio to withdraw over this issue. If the abortion issue is that important to us, then we should be allowed to keep money that we contribute to our party from getting into the hands of candidates who we wouldn’t vote for.

We should pray that God would use our example of consistency and resolve to be a good witness to people who are “tossed by every wind and wave of doctrine”.

Crisis in the Constitution Party

There have been many issues that have divided the Constitution Party of late. It has gotten to the point that party is at a crisis point. In light of recent events, I wish to express my opinion on these issues.

1. Rape/Incest Abortion Exception

I did not attend the last National Committee Meeting in Tampa, but I have been hearing about this “Nevada Compromise”. I don’t know exactly what this compromise entails. The abortion issue is one of main reasons why I became interested in the CP. I heard Howard Phillips in his 2000 presidential campaign say how wrong it was that the Republicans were compromising on this issue. So for a CP candidate to say that he/she believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest is unthinkable. How then is the CP any different from the Republicans? If the National CP is allowing this, then I would be in favor of having my state affiliate, the CP of Ohio, disaffiliate itself from the National CP. The latest news on this is that the Oregon affiliate is considering disaffiliating itself from the National CP. I would like to know more about what the compromise was and who was in favor of it. For more go to

2. Life of Mother Abortion Exception

I agree with the positions of Dr. Patrick Johnston on this issue. This is a difficult issue. It would be unreasonable to say that a woman’s doctor should always be able to make the final decision as to whether or not a procedure is necessary to save a woman’s life. Then doctors could lie and say that it is necessary when it isn’t. In that case any law against abortion would be totally ineffective. There has to be some standard. I don’t think that anyone should be thrown out of the party for disagreeing with what that standard should be, but everyone in the party should agree that ending the life of an infant shouldn’t be criminalized only when the death of the infant is unintentional and unavoidable. The same laws that apply to the born, should also apply to the unborn. God does not show favoritism with respect to birth or how a person was conceived, so we shouldn't either.

3. The LDS

There are some Mormons in the CP who say that they are being discriminated against in the party. I don’t know whether or not this is true. I strongly disagree with the doctrines taught in the LDS church, but I do not think there should be any policies allowed that bar the Mormons from participating in any way in the party. As long as a person’s beliefs and actions are consistent with Constitutional and certain moral principles, they should be allowed to participate in any capacity. But I do believe in discriminating against people who believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.

4. Gay Marriage

Everyone in the CP believes that the government should not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. There is some disagreement in the CP about why the government should not make such recognitions. More importantly, there is disagreement about how to go about preventing the government from making such recognitions. The 2004 CP presidential nominee, Michael Peroutka said in his campaign that he was against the Federal Marriage Amendment because the government should not “define marriage”. He thinks that the real solution is to get rid of activist judges (that is, of course, part of the solution). As a result of this, many people who listened to him have also decided to be against the various state constitutional amendments of 2004 which were designed to protect marriage. The CP of Ohio was, however, officially in favor of Ohio’s 2004 constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

The language of the state amendment, called “vague” by many liberal republicans, does seem vague because it protects Ohio from having to recognize anything having the “qualities of marriage” between same sex couples. The proposed Federal amendment contains no language that would disallow civil unions or anything else that is an attempt to mimic gay marriage, but called by a different name. It is precisely this added language that Republicans Petro, Governor Taft, Senator Mike DeWine (up for U.S. Senate this year), and Senator George Voinovich have called “vague” in the State Amendment that is what makes it effective. They say that they fear that the state amendment will provoke lawsuits. Of course it will. Any effective law would.

DOMA is like the Federal Amendment proposal. It is useless. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

So my position is in favor of the state amendment and against the current Federal amendment proposal, but for a different reason than Peroutka’s. Other people may say that the Federal Amendment would be effective because it would prevent liberals from using the clause in the constitution that says that a state has to recognize another state’s records. But if a state has gay civil union records, then there is nothing stopping them from using the same argument to force other states to recognize their civil unions and all of the privileges that come with it. We shouldn’t amend the Constitution if the amendment is ineffective. I would be in favor of a stronger Federal amendment. Such amendments don’t have to “define marriage”; they can merely codify the Biblical concept of it or disallow unbiblical concepts of it from being recognized.

5. Neoconfederalism

This last issue is one that I seem to be the only one who is speaking out about. Michael Peroutka is a member of an organization, the League of the South, which is calling for a revival of the Southern Confederacy. During his 2004 campaign, Peroutka had a link on his campaign website to another website which had a picture of the Capitol Building with a Confederate flag sticking out of it.

I don’t believe that Peroutka is a racist, but I think he has bitterness about the soldiers who died in the Civil War, which has been passed down from generation to generation. This bitterness, I fear, clouds his judgment and could cause a national crisis if the CP were to ever become a major party.

Make no mistake about it—the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy contains explicit statements which establish ownership of Negro slaves as a right. It says that this slavery is to “remain as it has been”. Slavery is not forbidden in scripture, but certain God-given rights were not granted to the slaves (such as the right to marry) or even free blacks. In the document, other states are explicitly barred from entering the Confederacy if they don’t accept these terms. My fear is that Peroutka, if elected, would push to have this document reestablished.

I do believe that states do have a right to secede from the many states. (Read the first line of the Declaration of Independence.) I do not believe that the Confederate Flag should be censored. I don’t have anything against southerners or their heritage. But what Michael Peroutka is doing is not prudent. Even if my fears are unwarranted, Peroutka is doing something that is totally unnecessary and which is likely to hold back the CP from being a more successful party.

Some people in the party I have talked to say that they would rather have a different nominee for the 2008 presidential election, but they say that they would still vote for Peroutka if he were the nominee. I will not unless he changes his position on this issue. Other people either don’t care at all or agree with Peroutka on this issue.

Ohio Primary 2006

Candidates Summary

D-Merrill Keiser is very pro-life. He clearly spells out his views on abortion and many other issues on his blog.

Links to all of the candidates websites can be found at


R-Ken Blackwell (Governor) – “Ken Blackwell has always been pro-life. The first obligation of government is to protect innocent life. As Governor, Ken Blackwell would advance a culture of life, just as he has for 30 years, as Mayor of Cincinnati, Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission and in statewide office. Ken Blackwell's grandmother made it clear to him when he was young when she said birth is but a change of address. All children in the womb or outside should be guaranteed the right to life. We must promote a culture of life, and we start doing so by defending defenseless unborn children.”

R-Jim Petro (Governor) – “Jim Petro is pro-life. He firmly believes we must respect the value of life from conception. As Attorney General, Jim Petro successfully defended Ohio’s law banning Partial Birth Abortion. As a result, Ohio has the only court tested Partial Birth Abortion law in the country. As Governor, Jim Petro will fight for a culture of life in Ohio.”

R-William Pierce (U.S. Senate) – “I am a pro-life conservative who believes strongly in the sanctity of life and that it begins at conception. Abortion at any and all stages is wrong, with the rare and documented exception when the life of the mother is at risk.”

R-David Smith (U.S. Senate) – “Our government was instituted to protect the life of its citizens. The practice of abortion is in conflict with the purpose of government. We must protect the life of the unborn child. With certain exceptions with respect to the life of the mother, we must eliminate the practice of abortion in America.” But the Cincinnati Enquirer reported (4/21/06) that U.S. Senate candidate David R. Smith said, “I am pro-life and am opposed to abortion with the exception of certain extreme cases with respect to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.” Smith did not mention the rape and incest exception on the Citizens for Community Values survey or on his website.

R-Mike DeWine (U.S. Senate) – “I am pro-life.”

“Sandra (O’Brien, Republican for Treasurer) is Pro Life. She believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is an act that has two victims, the child and the mother. All voters in the May 2nd Republican Primary should know that they have a clear choice on the issue of abortion. Sandra’s opponent in the May Primary, Jeanette Bradley is pro-choice (Columbus Dispatch Feb. 2, 2002)”

R-Tim Grendell (for Attorney General) – “I hope to have your support as I continue to defend our traditional family values and definition of marriage, our right to life, and our right to bear arms.”

R-Betty Montgomery (for Attorney General) is against legalizing partial-birth abortion, government funding of abortion, and is for parental consent laws and two murder charges when a pregnant woman is murdered, but says, ” …beyond these restrictions, I do not believe that the awesome power of government should intrude into the personal life of Ohioans to make any further mandates.”

R-Mary Taylor (for State Auditor, unopposed in the primary) is a cosponsor of Ohio HB 228, which if passed, would ban abortion in Ohio.

Homosexual rights, Gay Marriage/Civil Unions

I have not verified the following claim that Blackwell has made about Jim Petro:

“On the issue of defending traditional marriage, Jim Petro not only opposed the 2004 Ohio Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),…”

But this much is true…

On his website, Petro says he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment, but he did oppose Issue 1 (of 2004), the Ohio Marriage Amendment that passed with overwhelming voter support. Petro says that the reason why he supports the Federal Amendment and not the State Amendment is because the language of the State Amendment is vague, and subjects the State of Ohio to potential lawsuits. But the reason why the language is vague is because it protects Ohio from having to recognize anything having the “qualities of marriage” between same sex couples. The proposed Federal amendment contains no language that would disallow civil unions or anything else that is an attempt to mimic gay marriage, but called by a different name. It is precisely this added language that Republicans Petro, Governor Taft, Senator Mike DeWine (up for U.S. Senate this year), and Senator George Voinovich have called “vague” in the State Amendment that is what makes it effective. The reasons why they were against it were fear of losing businesses to other states. DOMA is like the Federal Amendment proposal. It is useless. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

See the Citizens for Community Values survey for the other candidates’ responses on this question.

Senate Filibusters of Judicial Nominees

Mike DeWine is one of the seven Republican senators who compromised against the proposal to change the rules of the Senate to disallow filibusters of the President’s judicial nominees. Both of DeWine’s opponents, William Pierce and David R. Smith, say they would vote to end this type of filibuster.


Jim Petro supports expanding vouchers and charter schools in Ohio.

William Pierce believes that the Federal government’s involvement in education is against Constitution. He would get rid of the Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind Program and all other Federal interference in education, giving control of it back to the States and local school districts.

David R. Smith “I support greater local control of education. I feel increased competition between public, private and home schools will improve education. Free markets will drive education to a higher level of performance. Voucher-type programs that permit parental choice in education will strengthen education in America. Strong families, not overbearing government programs, are the key to improving education.”

2nd Amendment rights

Jim Petro “was an early and public supporter of Ohio’s Concealed Carry Law.”

William Pierce (U.S. Senate) “Although I am not a gun owner, my strong belief and support of the Constitution says I must not, and will not, challenge your right to own and bear arms.”

David Smith (U.S. Senate) “I strongly support the Second Amendment and am opposed to unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of citizens to bear arms. I feel that individuals, not guns, are responsible for crimes and that strengthening families, improving education, and fostering higher morals among citizens are the real keys to reducing gun-related crimes.”

Sandra (O’Brien) is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. She believes that law abiding citizens have the right to own firearms for hunting, sport shooting, or personal protection. Sandra supports concealed carry. She is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Any voters in the May 2nd Republican Primary should know that they have a clear choice on the issue of the Second Amendment. How does Sandra’s opponent, Jeannette Bradley, stand? “Both Taft and Bradley oppose a proposal to allow law abiding Ohioans to carry concealed weapons” (Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 2, '02)

O’Brien is in favor of requiring trigger locks to be sold with guns (Blackwell and Grendell are not, Christian Coalition Survey ).

Death Penalty

Pierce is against the death penalty in all cases.

National Defense/War in Iraq

David Smith, “National Security is the primary responsibility of the federal government. I support spending to develop new technologies and to strengthen intelligence operations to fight the war on terror as well as protect us against the larger threats of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. I believe freedom in Iraq will bring stability to the region. We must not allow our experience in Iraq to deter us from fighting the war on terror by allowing other radical nations to complete development on weapons of mass destruction before we react. We must act before it is too late.” David Smith is also for free trade.


William Pierce, “With the threat of terrorism, it is more critical than ever that we protect our borders from illegal entry. It is estimated there are currently 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and this total is growing at a rate greater than 1 million undocumented aliens each year. Many are in search of a job, some are in search of crime, and some are crossing the border to import terrorism. Applications for work permits should be available for those looking for employment and willing to fill the jobs many Americans overlook. The remaining must be turned away in a reliable manner to ensure they do not gain entry. To do otherwise, provides an intolerable weak link in homeland security.” Pierce is in favor of building a fence to keep out illegal immigrants.

David Smith, “Illegal immigration is both a security and economic threat to our nation. I support increases in border security in efforts to halt the large influx of illegal aliens into America. I am opposed to amnesty programs that offer citizenship or some form of legal status to those who unlawfully reside in our country. Our emigration laws must be enforced. Those seeking citizenship must follow the legal steps required for becoming a United States Citizen.”

More on Blackwell

In this hotly contested Gubernatorial race, Jim Petro has run ads saying that Blackwell invested in stocks which included gambling, electronic voting machines, radio stations which use vulgar language, and even a pharmaceutical company that makes abortion pills. Blackwell says that he had been unaware of the investments because he doesn’t manage his finances himself. He has already sold the voting machine stock at a loss, and is working with the Ohio Right to Life to clean up the rest of his portfolio.

“…he is opposed to the expansion of state-sponsored gambling because it does more harm than good.”

From the Toledo Blade June 5, 2005:

Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was not initially concerned or even shocked that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation had invested $50 million in rare coins.

In fact, Mr. Blackwell told The Blade on April 5 (2005) that "most people" wouldn't find it "unreasonable" that the state had invested in rare coins with Tom Noe, who has said through his attorneys that at least $10 million of the state's assets are missing.
"When you run a fund the size of $18 billion and you're looking at $50 million, beyond what one's disposition might be, is that an irresponsible amount of risk? Most people would say no," Mr. Blackwell said on April 5 (2005) - two days after The Blade's initial report on the coin investment.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The state's chief elections officer, accused of mishandling the presidential vote in Ohio, sent a fund-raising letter for his own 2006 gubernatorial campaign that was accompanied by a request for illegal contributions.

A pledge card with the letter from Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (search), a Republican who co-chaired the Bush-Cheney election campaign in Ohio, said "corporate & personal checks are welcome."

Corporate donations are illegal in Ohio. His spokesman, Carlo LoParo, said Saturday that any corporate donations would be returned. Blackwell said the request sent to GOP donors and activists was an oversight. His campaign's fund-raising coordinator, Jeff Ledbetter, blamed a printer for the mistake, saying it used a template for an issue committee, which is allowed to accept corporate donations. Ledbetter told The Columbus Dispatch that no corporate donations had been received in response to the letter.
Blackwell's letter also praises Republicans for helping deliver Ohio to President Bush. U.S. Rep. John Conyers (search), D-Mich., who prepared a report on election problems in Ohio, said the letter supports suspicions that Blackwell's actions as secretary of state during the election "stemmed from partisan political motivations" to help Bush.

No fault absentee voting

Issue 2 (of 2005): This proposed amendment would allow anyone to be able to vote absentee without providing a reason. Secretary Blackwell has supported no fault absentee voting since 1999. However, this proposed amendment goes too far by placing an amendment in the Ohio Constitution. This is an issue that the legislature should have to address so that it can provide Ohioans the flexibility to adjust and enhance the provision. This amendment allows voters to vote absentee, then requires that someone who voted absentee be allowed to vote provisionally, while leaving it up to the board to catch it. This gives the chance for people to vote twice if the county board of elections misses it.

Their amendment also does not set statewide standards of times and locations for early voting, which would allow the rules to dramatically vary from county to county.

Social Security info on Blackwell Web site (Dayton Daily News)
COLUMBUS A furor erupted Wednesday over the disclosure that Ohioans' Social Security numbers are included on some business documents posted on Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's Web site, raising the potential for identity theft.

About Me

My photo
I am born again Christian with a strong interest in politics, doctrine, science, and how these relate to one another.