Nov. 26, 2007

Moral Issues Leave Black Evangelicals Torn

Washington Post: GOP Seeks Sizable Segment Of Black Voters Based On Common Ground On Social Issues

  • Pastor Lyle Dukes, of Harvest Life Changers Church, in Woodbridge, Va., at podium, speaks in support of judge Janice Rogers Brown during the filibuster fight over her nomination in April 2005 (she was confirmed in June 2005). Other religious leaders pictured are Pastor Rod Parsley of World Harvest Church, Columbus, Ohio, left; Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, Md., rear, behind Dukes; and Vivian Berryhill, president of National Coalition of Pastors' Spouses, right.  (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

  • Interactive Campaign 2008

    Profiles of the candidates, polls, fund-raising, blogs, video and more.

  • News Tools Campaign Calendar

    The latest list of primary and caucus dates as states continue jockeying for position.

From Our Partner:
(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Krissah Williams.


Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr. will often exhort his congregation to "stand against" abortion and same-sex marriage. "You are on the battlefield in a culture war," he'll say, urging his listeners to help serve as the "moral compass of America."

In his rhetoric and his political agenda, Jackson has much in common with other evangelical Christians who are part of the conservative wing of the Republican party, except that Jackson is African American and so is his congregation at Hope Christian Church in Prince George's County.

Jackson, head of a group of socially conservative black pastors called the High Impact Leadership Coalition, in many ways personifies the possibilities that Republican strategists such as Karl Rove have seen in appealing to the social conservatism of many African American churchgoers. Blacks overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats and typically support Democratic candidates, but optimists in the GOP think one way to become a majority party is to peel off a sizable segment of black voters by finding common ground on social issues.

As a group, blacks attend religious services more frequently than whites and are less supportive of gay rights. In a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University poll this summer, 43 percent of white Democrats supported same-sex marriage, about double the percentage of black Democrats who said they do. More than half of blacks said they oppose both same-sex marriage and legal recognition of same-sex civil unions.

In the 2004 election, there was evidence that an appeal aimed at those differences could work. President Bush nearly doubled his share of the black vote in Ohio, thanks to a same-sex-marriage initiative on the ballot and the targeting of black churchgoers through mailings and radio ads. But it's unlikely that the 2008 Republican presidential candidate will be able to consolidate those gains, and Jackson is one indication of why.

During the last presidential election cycle, Jackson prayed for Bush and crisscrossed the country pressing conservative social issues. Now he's pushing an issues agenda rather than "carrying the water for the Republican party," he said. "They are not reliable enough."

Jackson's discontent is a reflection of the worries of other religious conservatives, black and white, who fear that Republican voters will nominate pro-choice candidate and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and are still chafing at the headline-grabbing sex and ethics scandals involving Republicans.

"You don't have someone who is a Christian evangelical like Bush to really revitalize the black evangelicals this time around," said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Bush promised colorblind appointments and launched the faith-based initiative, and the timing of his run coincided with several state ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage that turned out large numbers of evangelicals, Green said. The Republicans running this year have not made the same appeal.

Other conservative black preachers raise a different issue.

"Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge, a member of Jackson's group who supported Bush in 2004. "What we think is moral is not only the defense of marriage, but we also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."

Dukes is looking at candidates in both parties this year.

Bishop Timothy J. Clarke, leader of the 5,000-member First Church of God in Columbus, Ohio, said: "You have to prioritize. You are dealing with a less-than-perfect world and a less-than-perfect system."

Clarke has worked with Jackson's coalition but also hosted Democratic presidential candidates in 2004. He said he and his members care as much about health care and livable wages as they do about conservative social issues.

On his way out of the noon Bible study at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in the District the other day, Stephen Peagler, 27, said he is a faithful churchgoer who believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are wrong. But, he said, when it comes to voting, he's looking for a candidate who will address issues that are more relevant in his everyday life. And Democrats are more likely to deal with the high incarceration rates of black men and underperforming inner-city schools, he said.

And there is a more fundamental obstacle that anyone seeking a vote for GOP candidates must confront: "I was brought up to say that the Republicans are not good, and they are not for issues that concern blacks," Peagler said.

Only 5 percent of blacks in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll called abortion or moral or family-values issues their top concerns for the upcoming presidential election. By contrast, more than four in 10 highlighted the war in Iraq, 38 percent health care and 33 percent the economy and jobs.

"Devout black churchgoers' issue set is pretty much the same as other African Americans, which is big on economic issues, health care and dealing with poverty and education," said David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. "When African Americans say they are conservative, it doesn't mean they are politically conservative. It means that they are conservative in terms of their personal behavior."

The evangelical church's racial split turns on that point. The black evangelical church developed a penchant for social justice and progressive politics as part of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. White fundamentalists steered clear and after the passage of Roe v. Wade made fighting legalized abortion their signature political issue.

"One of the misnomers that we labor under is the line of demarcation between social issues and moral issues," Clarke said. "For us, they are almost one and the same."

Jackson tells both black and white evangelical groups that they have to shake off the past and realize that they now have more in common than they think. At a recent gathering of white evangelical voters in Washington, he described "a new generation of African American preachers who are preaching this same cornbread-and-beans encouraging message, but they have a laptop and BlackBerry. They are informed. They share your values."

That line elicited a standing ovation from the white crowd, who welcomed the black minister with the same shouts that later greeted Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and conservative Christian leader James Dobson.

Republican officials, for their part, have not given up their efforts to reach church members. The Republican National Committee sent representatives to the recent National Baptist Convention in Philadelphia, the National Progressive Baptist Convention in the District, and the 100th anniversary celebration of the Church of God in Christ in Memphis to interact with black pastors, according to Shannon Reeves, who oversees the RNC's efforts to increase its following among blacks.

"What they preach from the pulpit is consistent with [Republican] policies, but there was not an organized effort to have an ongoing relationship," Reeves said. "This is long-term."

But Jackson, at least, has become more skeptical about the party.

Quote

You don't have someone who is a Christian evangelical like Bush to really revitalize the black evangelicals this time around.

John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
He thinks the GOP pays attention to evangelicals when it needs their votes but has not delivered when it comes to advancing their causes. Jackson said that after the 2004 election, he attended a White House meeting of evangelical leaders and listened as Rove said he didn't think the church vote had won the election for Bush.

Jackson told him: "I am a registered Democrat. The only reason I am here is because I thought you were working on issues of faith and that it would be better for my folks than the promises, promises of the Democratic party."

Democrats, he said, "come to us under the cloak of darkness at the last hour, get what they want and then act like they don't know us the next day."

That got a big laugh from the conservatives, he recalled. Then Jackson said he told Rove: "You all are doing the same thing to the evangelicals."

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 42 Comments
by southprophet November 27, 2007 8:12 PM EST
HOPE FOR AMERICA: PRESIDENT RON PAUL
RonPaul2008.com

-- No more meddling in other country''s political affairs
-- No more aggressive military actions overseas
-- No more torture prisons
-- No more pseudo-wars like the "War on Drugs"
-- No more IRS and unconstitutional income taxes
-- No more Federal Reserve (the group of private banks which owns our government)
-- No more erosion of Social Security to pay for militarization
-- No more U.N. (one world government) participation
-- No more NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or GATT (global trade cartels)
-- No more North American Union (loss of U.S. sovereignty)
-- No more federal gun control laws
-- No more illegal aliens pouring-in over our country''s borders
-- No more illegal aliens allowed to roam freely in our streets
-- No more national ID cards (Real ID Act)
-- No more government invasion of your privacy
-- No more federal Laws which force you to take unwanted injections
-- No more federal Laws which are not authorized by The Constitution
-- No more federal erosion of State sovereignty
-- No more unlimited federal government

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
- James Madison

"Wars are poor chisels for carving-out peaceful tomorrows."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Reply to this comment
by eastprophet November 27, 2007 8:09 PM EST
COULDN''T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN? REALLY?
Everytime I hear Democrats say "I hate the Republican Party. Look at what Bush has done.," I can''t help but think about all of Bush''s Democratic enablers in the Congress like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et. al. who made all of his dastardly deeds possible. They handed him every bit of legislation with which he has used to make himself the dictator that he now is on a silver platter. The Democrats in Congress don''t even seem to express any interest in investigating Bush for the crimes he and Cheney have surely committed against our country even though a vast majority of Americans think they should. What cowards! In fact, Obama and Clinton even voted in favor of legislation which actually allows Bush to pre-pardon himself and his administration for crimes dating all the way back to 9/11. What''s up with that? Look. Do yourself and your country a favor. Focus on the candidate, and the ideas and positions he or she represents, and then study the candidate''s track record of performance with respect to those positions. That''s all that really matters in the end. Elections are not a contest of two teams. Ultimately, It''s the politician who will either serve your interests or betray them while in office--not their party. Finally, Democrats, I ask you this: Would you have voted for Steven Douglas (a Democrat), who was ardently pro-slavery, against Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) simply because Douglas was a Democrat? I think most of you would.
Reply to this comment
by northprophet November 27, 2007 8:08 PM EST
YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES
America is tipping way too far back in her easy chair. Something BIG is about to happen, and I predict this upcoming 2008 Presidential Election will be extremely pivotal. I''m not going to name any candidates. You probably already know who my favorite one is. But let me make my point absolutely clear: If you think times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable, think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful. Trust only that wisdom which is your own. 90% of mainstream media in this country is controlled by fewer than 20 different organizations. Unfortunately, they, like the sold-out political ****** who pretend tp serve us in Washington, were bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex decades ago. Therefore, mainsteam media will paint pictures they want to paint, and people will open their minds to pictures they want to see. So, be skeptical. Be wise. Research issues and talking points on your own, and share what you learn with those you love. The future of your family tree may lay in the balance.
Reply to this comment
by westprophet November 27, 2007 8:08 PM EST
ARE WE A NATION OF LAWS?
Consider the Patriot Act. The Law is 342 pages long, or 57,000 words, making it a bit longer than Dostoevsky''s "Notes from Underground" or, if you''re partial to pigs, about twice the size of Orwell''s "Animal Farm." The Patriot Act is the reigning champion of our government''s recent un-American activities. When it was first paraded before Congress and the Senate following the 9/11 attacks, few Members, other than Congressman, Ron Paul dared to vote against it. Most in Congress simply gave it their rubber-stamp of approval, without ever reading it. Why bother? It was, after all, named the "USA Patriot Act." It must be a good thing. Right? Now in effect, the Law wrecks a generation''s worth of constitutional protections against government snooping, legalizing police-state tactics in searches and seizures, criminalizing certain forms of speech and political activity, and opening the way for the mistreatment of foreigners in government custody and wholesale expulsions and imprisonment. It is a repugnant, unnecessary Law that goes against the very principles its name wrongly implies. Yet, it remains unchecked and unbalanced by public opinion, Lawmakers or the Courts. So, yes, we''re a nation of Laws. But the Laws aren''t much to speak of when they''re designed to hoodwink the public to win its docility. Neither is public responsibility much to speak of these days when its docility is secured with nothing more than a ploy-riddled play on the word "patriot."
Reply to this comment
by eastprophet November 27, 2007 8:08 PM EST
DEMOCRATS HOODWINKED BY HILLARY
Sadly, even though Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and a host of Laws aimed at removing civil liberties; and our country''s sovereignty, Democrats are so blinded by her cult of personality that I predict they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back into office. While I''ve made some progress in educating Liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority of Democrats still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theater that was the "troop surge" debate in the Senate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. A Clinton presidency will mean more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate global elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base: the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. I''m sure she informed the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to attend the Bilderberger conference. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by eastprophet November 27, 2007 8:06 PM EST
COULDN''T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN? REALLY?
Everytime I hear Democrats say "I hate the Republican Party. Look at what Bush has done.," I can''t help but think about all of Bush''s Democratic enablers in the Congress like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et. al. who made all of his dastardly deeds possible. They handed him every bit of legislation with which he has used to make himself the dictator that he now is on a silver platter. The Democrats in Congress don''t even seem to express any interest in investigating Bush for the crimes he and Cheney have surely committed against our country even though a vast majority of Americans think they should. What cowards! In fact, Obama and Clinton even voted in favor of legislation which actually allows Bush to pre-pardon himself and his administration for crimes dating all the way back to 9/11. What''s up with that? Look. Do yourself and your country a favor. Focus on the candidate, and the ideas and positions he or she represents, and then study the candidate''s track record of performance with respect to those positions. That''s all that really matters in the end. Elections are not a contest of two teams. Ultimately, It''s the politician who will either serve your interests or betray them while in office--not their party. Finally, Democrats, I ask you this: Would you have voted for Steven Douglas (a Democrat), who was ardently pro-slavery, against Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) simply because Douglas was a Democrat? I think most of you would.
Reply to this comment
by northprophet November 27, 2007 8:05 PM EST
CLINTON LETS BUSH PARDON HIMSELF
Buried deep inside Military Commisions Act, which was FULLY SUPPORTED by Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, is a provision which pre-pardons President Bush and all the members of his administration for any crimes which they may have committed all the way back to September 11, 2001. Why that far back? That kind of makes you wonder. Huh? I can''t help but recall what Nixon said during an interview following the Watergate scandal when he said, "If the President does it, by definition, it''s not illegal." History never repeats itself, folks. It only rhymes. At least Nixon had enough class to wait for another President to pardon him for his crimes against our country. Bush apparently doesn''t want to take that chance. He has to consider the risk that Ron Paul will become our next President.
Reply to this comment
by southprophet November 27, 2007 8:05 PM EST
CAMPING-OUT WITH HILLARY
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, permits militarized police round-ups and detention of "protesters" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities which are already contracted for and under construction by Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. This Law, which was sold to an emergency managed and willfully gullible public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as a necessary measure needed by our President in order to fight his "global war on terrorism," permits the indefinite detention of American citizens who resist the foreign and domestic agenda of our President. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported recently that global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced during January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division had been awarded a (no bid) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to build these detainment camps with a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term, and that this contract called for the company to build "temporary detention and processing capabilities" to augment existing U.S. government Detention and Removal Operations and to support "the rapid development of new programs." New Programs? Could it possibly get any worse? Why would the president be so concerned about Americans protesting? Aren''t we all happy campers?
Reply to this comment
by westprophet November 27, 2007 8:05 PM EST
WILL CLINTON MAKE THIS A THOUGHT CRIME?
While CBS was busy pretending all other news didn''t exist during the California wildfires, our Constitution was burning on the floors of Congress. On Oct 23, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This Bill is one of the most blatant attacks against our right to freedom of speech ever devised by Congress. The Bill actually defines different types of thought as "homegrown terrorism," and unlike previous anti-terror legislation, it specifically targets U.S. citizens. The Bill uses extremely vague language to define "terrorist propoganda" as any speech which promotes an agenda that the government considers an "extremist belief system." Since the bill doesn''t specifically define what an "extremist belief system" is, it will be entirely up to the interpretation of government officials. Isn''t that comforting? Considering how much the government has done to desecrate our Constitution lately, they would surely have to define this post as promoting an "extremist belief" system, since it promotes the restoration of civil liberties--something not en vogue these days. As disturbing as this Bill is, so to is the additional requirement that there be a seperate, "public version." In other words, the Bill we see is different from what Congress is seeing. Why''s that necessary? Whatever the reason, I predict this Bill will become Law soon while CBS focuses the country''s attention elsewhere
Reply to this comment
by hwy71so November 27, 2007 5:46 PM EST
I suppose you''d just have to BE religious to understand...

Incidentally, Larry, I question my faith daily. Helps me to remain honest to myself and loyal to my beliefs.
Reply to this comment
by williaml8 November 27, 2007 8:40 AM EST
Mike Huckabee certainly is a Christian evangelical who shares their values. Unfortunately he just hasn''t got enough press to be generally known, but that''s beginning to change.
Reply to this comment
by westprophet November 27, 2007 3:58 AM EST
HOPE FOR AMERICA: PRESIDENT RON PAUL
RonPaul2008.com

-- No more meddling in other country''s political affairs
-- No more aggressive military actions overseas
-- No more torture prisons
-- No more pseudo-wars like the "War on Drugs"
-- No more IRS and unconstitutional income taxes
-- No more Federal Reserve (the group of private banks which owns our government)
-- No more erosion of Social Security to pay for militarization
-- No more U.N. (one world government) participation
-- No more NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or GATT (globalist trade cartels)
-- No more North American Union (loss of U.S. sovereignty)
-- No more federal gun control laws
-- No more illegal aliens pouring-in over our country''s borders
-- No more illegal aliens allowed to roam freely in our streets
-- No more national ID cards (Real ID Act)
-- No more government invasion of your privacy
-- No more federal Laws which force you to take unwanted injections
-- No more federal Laws which are not authorized by The Constitution
-- No more federal erosion of State sovereignty
-- No more unlimited federal government

"Wars are poor chisels for carving-out peaceful tomorrows."
- Martin Luther King Jr.

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
- James Madison

"When the people fear their government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply to this comment
by eastprophet November 27, 2007 3:58 AM EST
RON PAUL IS THE NEW WAY
What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW way. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherence to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.
Reply to this comment
by northprophet November 27, 2007 3:57 AM EST
COULDN''T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN? REALLY?
Everytime I hear Democrats say "I hate the Republican Party. Look at what Bush has done.," I can''t help but think about all of Bush''s Democratic enablers in the Congress like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et. al. who made all of his dastardly deeds possible. They handed him every bit of legislation with which he has used to make himself the dictator that he now is on a silver platter. The Democrats in Congress don''t even seem to express any interest in investigating Bush for the crimes he and Cheney have surely committed against our country even though a vast majority of Americans think they should. What cowards! In fact, Obama and Clinton even voted in favor of legislation which actually allows Bush to pre-pardon himself and his administration for crimes dating all the way back to 9/11. What''s up with that? Look. Do yourself and your country a favor. Focus on the candidate, and the ideas and positions he or she represents, and then study the candidate''s track record of performance with respect to those positions. That''s all that really matters in the end. Elections are not a contest of two teams. Ultimately, It''s the politician who will either serve your interests or betray them while in office--not their party. Finally, Democrats, I ask you this: Would you have voted for Steven Douglas (a Democrat), who was ardently pro-slavery, against Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) simply because Douglas was a Democrat? I think most of you would.
Reply to this comment
by southprophet November 27, 2007 3:57 AM EST
ONLY RON PAUL CAN BEAT CLINTON
Zogby''s Director of Communications Fritz Wenzel said on November 20 that Paul is the strongest of the GOP candidates to run against Clinton. "Among the larger universe of voters," which includes all parties, "yes, Paul would be a much stronger candidate than any of the other three [Romney, Giuliani, Thompson]," Wenzel said. Zogby recently announced that Paul was their winner in a nationwide blind-bio poll which included voters from all parties. "He is anti-war and the majority of Democrats are anti-war, he has some other ideas and policies and stances on issues more attractive to Democrats, particularly conservative Democrats," said Wenzel. "Even among Independents, he is far and away a more attractive candidate," he added. Paul is the only GOP candidate who is not threatening war with Iran, whereas Clinton vowed to keep that option "on the table." Paul also voted against the war in Iraq, which Clinton has supported. Because Democrats outnumber Republicans, none of the other GOP candidates can win against Clinton, because they simply won''t be able to reach across party lines and attract enough Democratic and Independent voters to beat Clinton. Only Paul can do that. "He''s right on schedule," Wenzel said. "He''s making all the right moves, going in the right direction...at a time when other candidates are not moving." Wenzel based his analysis on recent polls that show Paul could win in New Hampshire and that his support nationwide is intensifying.
Reply to this comment
by westprophet November 27, 2007 3:57 AM EST
RON PAUL WINS BIG IN NATIONAL POLL
The results of a nationwide telephone poll, announced by Zogby on November 19th, reveals that Americans want to vote for a candidate who protects liberty; who wants to shrink government; and who wants to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq - positions of Congressman Ron Paul. As part of a blind-bio, spread poll, likely voters (from all parties) were provided with descriptions of four different Republican candidates and asked to choose who they would vote for based on each one''s resume and political platform. 33% of pollees chose Ron Paul, 19% chose Rudy Giuliani, 15% chose Mitt Romney and 13% chose Fred Thompson. The results clearly illustrate that the country is crying out for Ron Paul, which is why mainstream media has launched a public relations offensive to marginalize his accomplishments and suppress the Congressman''s name recognition. In a seperate question, over 49% of pollees said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, Ron Paul won in every demographic of this poll including, but not limited to, religious voters, NASCAR fans, military families, African-Americans, etc..
Reply to this comment
by eastprophet November 27, 2007 3:57 AM EST
RON PAUL WILL RESTORE U.S. SOVEREIGNTY
All of the trade deals and world government organizations, which all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all a major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, being built by a Spanish company, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty.
Reply to this comment
by northprophet November 27, 2007 3:56 AM EST
A FOREIGN POLICY OF FREEDOM
All of the other presidential candidates want to continue our illegal police action in Iraq indefinitely, and they do not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Conversely, Ron Paul voted against our (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. The war in Iraq has cost more than 3,500 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We need a leader in the White House who will ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal aliens who are invading us from the South. No war should ever be fought without a Declaration of War voted upon by the Congress, as required by The Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.
Reply to this comment
by southprophet November 27, 2007 3:56 AM EST
RON PAUL IS THE TAXPAYER''S BEST FRIEND
If he is elected President, Ron Paul will work to abolish the Federal Reserve System as well as the IRS, returning our country to the Gold Standard. He believes, as I do, that our current Income Tax System is unconstitutional, because it is a direct tax that is not equally apportioned as The Constitution requires. Whenever taxes are raised by the federal government, it should be done as The Constitution does require--in an indirect way, which is equally apportioned. This system would benefit all of us, creating more individual wealth, and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. As President, Ron Paul will also work to abolish the Federal Reserve, a group of private banks, run by unelected officials, which loans our government unbacked money which they are allowed to essentially print out of thin air, making each dollar in your pocket worth less all the time, and increasing our national debt to these banks. Worse still. Most of our debt is owned by China (25%) and Saudi Arabia who finance our runaway military spending overseas. This is a threat to our nation. We need to bring our troops home from overseas, and use the trillions we would save thereby to reduce our debt, and to re-invigorate our currency. We can use this money to ensure that Social Security and other essential programs will still be solvent in the future. Vote for Ron Paul. He''s published three books on the topic of sound economics. RonPaulLibrary.org
Reply to this comment
by westprophet November 27, 2007 3:56 AM EST
RON PAUL KNOWS HOW TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. Ron Paul has a plan: (1.) Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. (2.) Enforce Visa rules. Immigration officials must track Visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their Visa or otherwise violates U.S. Law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired Visas. (3.) No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That''s a lot of people to reward for breaking our Laws. (4.) No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules, but taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. (5.) End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. (6.) Pass true immigration reform. The current system, and those proposed by ALL other candidates, is incoherent and unfair, and would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country.
Reply to this comment
See all 42 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Lambert: Offering No Apologies

    (489 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: