Thread: CHRISTIAN RIGHT JUST DOESN'T GET IT

Originally Posted by MW

GREGGREATAMERICAN wrote:

People are looking for the Answers in the wrong place

Haven't you heard, Ron Paul has all the answers. He may not be much for actually getting anything done, but he certainly has all the answers. I guess it's easy to have all the answers when your following isn't paying attention to the questions.

I agree that CFR influence is eroding our sovereignty and disassembling our country's identity piece by piece to accomplish a "one world order" (an international system of governance). However, I don't believe we'll find our salvation in Ron Paul. As best I can tell, he supports globalization and strong relations with any nation that wants to trade with us. Heck, Paul voted in favor of MFN (Most Favored Nation) trade status for Communist China on at least two occasions. He supported giving Communist China MFN trade status because of his libertarian beliefs in free trade.

So MW, when you can offer another candidate besides HUNTER and TANCREDO - WHO HAVE NEITHER THE FUNDING OR VOTES to win.. then you let me know.

Cause right now, you are rooting for people who can't win -which is admirable, but foolish in that you are only leaving yourself open to support one of the CFR MSM pushed candidates. You also talk about 'getting' things done, and of course - you just pulled that out of you keyster. Ron Paul was voted one of the top 50 most influential congressman. He is also prolific in the amount of legislation he puts thru. Sorry if its not "your" standard, "kill the commies and kill the towel heads" legislation you so enjoy. But it would behoove you to get informed on Ron Paul instead of finding the cracks you think exist and ignoring everything else. Cause is sorta what you do, alot.

I just get a BIG KICK out of you now trying to tie Ron Paul in with the globalists. That is soooo hilarious. I mean really MW. Please, you are loosing some serious credibility with you obvious fear. You don't find military basis in over 130 countries, toppling and creating regimes globalism.. but you find "trade" with all countries globalism..hahahah. oh my. C'mon now. I don't know if I should even take you serious.

So in your eyes, MW, it is completely okay to borrow billions a day from China to fund our wars, yet not okay to trade? uhmmm. ok.

*****************

Free trade makes sense
Congress must resist raising taxes, limiting freedom

Once again the contentious debate over trade with China is before the Congress, but this time with the added twist of allegations of spying.
And, once again, those opposed to free trade will join forces with those favoring taxpayer subsidization of foreign countries to mangle the English language and thoroughly confuse the issue.
In the parlance of Washington bureaucrats and politicians, as well as most special interest groups, words used in debate take on a quality similar to Orwellian double-speak. As in his classic "1984," the "Ministry of Love" was actually the department of war, today’s debates use words and phrases in ways diametrically opposed to reality.
For instance, if someone says they are for "free trade," one must look carefully what they really mean, for the classic (and common sense) definition does not apply.
All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means "subsidized trade," or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests.
On the other hand, those of us who oppose using the taxes of American citizens to prop-up foreign governments or American corporations are derisively called "isolationists." There are indeed some people who are isolationists. They call themselves "fair traders," though. Exactly what this means is open to debate. All too often it involves letting the government determine what is and is not "fair" in the private trading between individuals who live in different countries.
Sadly, these definitions all hinge on the assumption that there are essentially only two options: tax dollars being used to subsidize corporations/foreign governments, or no trade whatsoever without the rubber stamp of government bureaucrats and special interest groups.
The bottom-line of both options, of course, is higher taxes for Americans. Higher taxes to finance the subsidies, or higher taxes on incoming products (and make no mistake, a tariff is a tax, paid by the American consumer).
There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention.
It is indisputable that individuals know better how to provide for their families than government. It is also indisputable that a company is better equipped to know what its market will tolerate than a bureaucrat in Washington. In this way, a person is able to determine what goods best meet their individual needs, weighing numerous factors in their decision. But when government intervenes, it no longer becomes possible for an individual to provide for their family and business in the most expedient fashion. This is the antithesis of liberty.
Both the "fair traders" and the "subsidizers" now have a fantastic phantom upon which to justify their higher taxes and greater regulations: the Chinese spy scandal. This is a phantom for there is simply no connection between the spying and true free trade. In fact, it was the policy of subsidization and trade regulation, as well as generally lax security, which allowed the illegal transfers of technology. But to blame free trade, and then penalize average Americans, for the spying is the height of dishonesty.
If we are to end trade with all nations which spy on us, or upon whom we spy, then we will quickly find far fewer products available at the supermarket, and much higher prices on everything.
The correct solution to this seeming quagmire is one which few in (or for that matter, outside) Washington will promote. The US government should immediately end all taxpayer subsidization of China, including funds funneled through the Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. Congress should immediately require that when the government enters into contracts with companies to develop and manufacture goods critical to our national security, those companies agree to do no business with China.
Never, though, should Congress raise taxes or limit the ability of individual Americans to engage in honest trade with foreign manufacturers. While the market may demand - through boycotts and similar activities - that trade cease, that should be left entirely to the market, not bureaucrats in Washington.
Free trade, not isolationism or subsidization, is the most moral of instruments between men. Engagement, not irrational fear or political paybacks, is the best force for bringing change to China and our relations with its people.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=100

If memory serves me there is a law that prohibits the churches and non profits from specially endorsing a candidate for office.
Which also being repealed by the Good Doc.


It is wrong and detrimental to the Church, as in the Church as a whole.
Politics is a very nasty and dirty business. It is not something any church should be involved in - period. When they do, they drag the church in the muck and mire of politics.

They did that big time with Pres. Bush and then were reluctant or downright refused to call him on many things he has done that are wrong. How can they put anyone forward as 'God's choice' - then have to call him/her on the things they are doing.

Black churches have been involved in politics for a very, very long time - and others are now doing the same.

It isn't good for the church -

I don't know that they are prohibited from endorsing a candidate - but if they are - why should they be?

All manner of non-profits endorse candidates - all the time - I doubt it is against the law - but if it is - it shouldn't be.

I will say this - Ron Paul has got some people uneasy - the media, the two mythical political parties, the money people, corporations and they are pulling out all the stops.

The thing is, the more he is attacked and the more outrageous the charges, the more people start looking at what he is saying. The more they listen, the more they agree.

Originally Posted by Gogo

This is obviously a Ron Paul advertisement. IF and I say IF this guy knows anything about scripture and right wing Christianity, he would know that Ron Paul's stance on Israel is counter the Bible. Genesis clearing states that "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." Ron Paul is on the edge of cursing Israel and I don't trust him.

As far as saying Paul is the only candidate you can trust is beyond the pale. Tancredo and Hunter are trust worthy. Tancredo hasn't been banned from coming to the Whitehouse for nothing. Hunter constantly is right letters to get Ramos and Campean released.

This is a unbalanced article. I agree with many things in it but I don't agree with his bottom line.

I see. Christians will continue to vote for war and subsidizing Israel, at taxpayer expense, because of their religious beliefs? Nice. Glad to know this. Glad to know that 100,000's of iraqi civilian deaths, and thousands of American soldiers have died because of a religious view. How is one to define curse or bless? How is one to define the effort of each? Does that mean money? Does that mean following, irrationally, into unconstitutional wars?

Hunter writing letters is your definition of "honesty"? I guess the allegations to his corruption will be ignored.

Also, perhaps you didn't do any "investigation". Mr. Baldwin IS a PASTOR, so I am sure he is a little informed on matters of scripture..

"
..... Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.
"
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin412.htm

Originally Posted by nntrixie

If memory serves me there is a law that prohibits the churches and non profits from specially endorsing a candidate for office.
Which also being repealed by the Good Doc.


It is wrong and detrimental to the Church, as in the Church as a whole.
Politics is a very nasty and dirty business. It is not something any church should be involved in - period. When they do, they drag the church in the muck and mire of politics.

They did that big time with Pres. Bush and then were reluctant or downright refused to call him on many things he has done that are wrong. How can they put anyone forward as 'God's choice' - then have to call him/her on the things they are doing.

Black churches have been involved in politics for a very, very long time - and others are now doing the same.

It isn't good for the church -

I don't know that they are prohibited from endorsing a candidate - but if they are - why should they be?

All manner of non-profits endorse candidates - all the time - I doubt it is against the law - but if it is - it shouldn't be.

I will say this - Ron Paul has got some people uneasy - the media, the two mythical political parties, the money people, corporations and they are pulling out all the stops.

The thing is, the more he is attacked and the more outrageous the charges, the more people start looking at what he is saying. The more they listen, the more they agree.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Here there is 13 pages in this @

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf

brightnail Good points.

I, too, was brought up in a Southern Baptist Church where you heard the preacher constantly telling us we had to back Israel, protect Israel, etc., etc., and for a long time I believed that way - even into adulthood.

Then I began actually giving it some thought and asking questions and the matter is not quite so clear cut anymore.

We do no one, Israel, the ME, the world, and especially the US, by keeping things stirred up over there. The only ones who benefit are the ones who are making and selling weapons - to both sides.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Greg,

Would you please post the link to this article?

Thanx

Maybe I should be more specific. There are several editorializing comments sprinkled among these lists of bills. Would you tell us if they are your own thoughts, or are they the opinions of someone else?

Thanks in advance...

Hey Greg

I didn't see you post about the 501 charities. Thanks.

It seems they are prohibited - but we do know the churches have acted illegally. They may have done it in some way that abided by the letter of the law - but they did endorse, and either finance through the church, or encourage their people do so.

But the fact remains, the church was hurt and sullied - that's the long and short of it. That's my point.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Hey Greg

I didn't see you post about the 501 charities. Thanks.

It seems they are prohibited - but we do know the churches have acted illegally. They may have done it in some way that abided by the letter of the law - but they did endorse, and either finance through the church, or encourage their people do so.

But the fact remains, the church was hurt and sullied - that's the long and short of it. That's my point.

For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS received 237 referals and selected 100 (44 churches, 56 nonchurches) for examination. More than half of these cases are still under investigation. However, the IRS did substantiate improper political activity in 26 cases and issued written advisories. So far, there are no revocation recommendations. (In 2004, the IRS selected 110 cases for examination, issued 69 written advisories, revoked the tax-exempt status of five organizations and proposed revocation for two others.)

But, if we get beyond all that.
I don’t want my minister telling me who is best or not so good for me it’s not his job!
His Job is bringing the Word of God to me not the word of Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter… At the same time I have never felt it the Job of a politicians to poke there noises in matters for the church. America was way better off before all these internet preachers started this Political web bloging. Especially by the ones that have no idea what they are talking about and not knowing who just might read one of there pieces.

Funny how some People just never see the truth about a canidate till you show them .
Na this aint funny
Im sure some people still wont see...

Ron Paul Freedom of choice isnt just about abortion...

I didn't realize that I was a LIBERTARIAN too.
I agree with every word he says.Put prayer back in school, educate our kids with good principles and take goverment out of our lives.
If a child has good teachings he/she will know hoe to behave.
Goverment only prtend to solve the problem , but they cannot change the bad habits.
This has been tryed for a long time and it proves : it's impossible to deal with what is inside of each person.
Homosexuality, the goverment has been incrising the rights for them. What do we get ?
They are becoming more and more open (see the last law in California which the parentS ARE AVOIDING KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL)
Their habits should be private . The goverment sholdn't give them rights and they could be living the way they wanted.
Abortion, I respect the right for a woman to decide until 10 weeks, after that I think it should be a crime.
I think the fundamental of any education is religion, I'm not religious but in my house we always showed our children the roots of religion, and in a world difficult like we have , thanks God we never had problems.
Today I have 3 grandchildren, 15,14,12 I am very happy and proud to say the base we transmitted to our kids were right.
So I agree with Ron Paul, if we put them in the pass of responsability, the states will be able to take care of the plague.
G-D HAS TO BE PART OF EVERYONES LIFE