For those of you who don't follow my friend Brittany's blog...I don't know anything about this pastor, but I think he has some interesting thoughts...
-Aimee
Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Here is an excerpt from
Pastor Chuck Baldwin's commentary on the South Carolina primary election. Read the whole thing
here for his take on the various candidates. Really, do! (Most of the emphasis added below is mine)
"Whether a candidate for public office is a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist,
Presbyterian, or Pentecostal is absolutely immaterial to whether or not
I vote for him or her. The primary responsibility of a President (or
any other civil magistrate) is to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States and to secure the rights and liberties
of the American citizenry. That’s it! It is no skin off my nose where
he or she goes to church, or even if he or she goes to church. It
doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether they quote scripture or claim
to be a Christian. What matters is that he or she honors their oath of
office to defend the Constitution and the people’s liberties.
And as everyone should know by now, Mitt Romney’s track record in
Massachusetts, from a constitutional point of reference, is absolutely
abysmal. In fact, Romney’s Massachusetts’s health care monstrosity was
the model for ObamaCare. In almost every discernable constitutional
criterion, Mitt Romney falls short. And that’s why I won’t vote for Mitt
Romney! In fact, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for the exact same
reason I won’t vote for Newt Gingrich. (To his credit, however, at
least Mitt Romney doesn’t have a passel of bimbos hiding under his
bed.)
I have said it all over America, and I’ll say it again: I would rather
vote for an unbeliever who will preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will not
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Next, let’s talk about Ron Paul.
Many Christians all over America have foolishly rejected the candidacy of Ron Paul. They have done this for reasons which I will outline here.
“Ron Paul is not pro-life,” many Christians purport.
Of course, this statement is laughable. As a long-term US House member from Texas,
Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act.
The so-called pro-life GOP in Washington, D.C., had several
opportunities to pass this Act when it held power in both houses of
Congress and the White House from 2000-2006.
Had it passed, Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have done two things:
1) it would have declared unborn babies to be human beings under the
law, 2) it would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the
Court under Article. 3. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would
have effectively overturned the infamous Roe. v. Wade Supreme Court
decision.
As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has never performed an abortion; but
he has delivered more than 4000 babies; he has repeatedly introduced
the Sanctity of Life Act in the US Congress–but he’s not “pro-life”?
Newt Gingrich, as speaker of the House, did absolutely nothing to
defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers domestically and
internationally from receiving US taxpayer dollars. In fact,
while Gingrich was Speaker of the House, taxpayer funding for abortion providers increased dramatically! Neither has he ever supported or promoted the Sanctity of Life Act, but
since he “says” he’s pro-life, many Christians vote for Gingrich and not Paul?
Is something wrong with this picture or what?
“I cannot support Ron Paul because he says he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a sin or not,” say many Christians.
Most readers know that I have been a minister of the Gospel for over 35
years. My convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality are
well known. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from when I
say that whether or not Ron Paul has a personal question as to whether
homosexuality is a religious or biological issue has absolutely nothing
to do with his fitness to be President of the United States. Absolutely
nothing! We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a
theologian-in-chief.
Dr. Paul’s personal religious belief is not the issue. The issue is his
fidelity to constitutional government. What Christians seemingly do
not understand is that constitutional government does more to protect
their God-given Natural rights than all of the religious rhetoric of all
the politicians of the entire country put together!
Dr. Paul understands the nature of government and the nature of liberty.
And he is committed to returning government to its rightful
jurisdictional authority Dr. Paul knows that the states and local
communities are the best protectors of the liberties and the values of
the people–including the values relating to aberrant sexual behavior
within those communities and states–NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(Listening to many so-called “conservatives,” one may get the idea that
they would be fine with doing away with independent statehood
altogether and letting the central government in Washington, D.C., run
everything. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were a wiser lot and
emphatically left the bulk of governing authority to the states.) For
example, if the State of Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, that’s
Nevada’s business. And if Montana wants to make prostitution illegal,
that is Montana’s business. If Florida wants to make medical marijuana
illegal, that’s Florida’s business. If, however, Montana wants to
legalize medical marijuana, that’s Montana’s business. Frankly, it is
none of Washington, D.C.’s business either way! Ron Paul understands
that.
Look at all the federal mandates that states and communities are
implementing contrary to the values and belief systems of the citizens
of the respective states and communities. That would not happen if
Washington, D.C., would butt out of our affairs and let us govern
ourselves. And if Massachusetts and California want to deprive their
citizens of their God-given liberties, the people of those states can
either remove those governments from power or move to a State where
liberty is protected. But at least there would be some states standing
in liberty to which one could go. As it is today, the entire country is
under the heavy hand of usurpation and oppression due to the fact that,
outside of Ron Paul and a few others in Washington, D.C., hardly
anyone inside the Beltway believes in constitutional government.
Plus, look at the inconsistency of trying to elect civil magistrates by some sort of religious litmus test:
Dr. Paul has been married to his wife, Carol, for over 50 years without the first scandal involving immoral activity,
but because of a personal question regarding a religious issue, many
Christians cannot vote for him? But Newt Gingrich can have so many
extramarital affairs that he probably cannot even count them all, and
yet his personal view of religion and morality are found acceptable to
many Christians?
Is something wrong with this picture or what?
“I can’t vote for Ron Paul, because he is ‘anti-Israel,’” many Christians say.
Here are the facts: Dr. Paul has a Jeffersonian philosophy regarding foreign entanglements.
He believes that we should trade freely with all nations, have
diplomatic relations with all nations, and live at peace with all
nations as much as is possible. He believes that Israel is a
sovereign state and, therefore, has the right to determine its own
affairs without Washington, D.C., dictating how, when, and what Tel Aviv
can and cannot do for its own peace and security. He believes we need
to butt out of everybody’s business and let sovereign states conduct
their own internal affairs. He believes the US military should be used
to protect the territory and people of the United States of America and
should not be the world’s policeman or the puppet of the Security
Council at the United Nations. But somehow, that is an unspiritual
philosophy and many Christians can’t support him?
Newt Gingrich wants to continue the Wilsonian foreign entanglement
philosophy by continuing to send troops to fight undeclared,
unconstitutional wars; by continuing to entrap and enrage foreign
capitols into conflicts that only serve the interests of international
bankers and the military-industrial complex; by continuing to use Israel
as a puppet to provoke conflict in the Middle East that only serves
the purpose of advancing an international New World Order, and somehow
this is seen as “spiritual” by many Christians who will support and
vote for him?
Is something wrong with this picture or what?
If the Republican Party has a death wish, they will nominate Newt
Gingrich as their Presidential candidate. Gingrich is a snake-oil
salesman; his words are absolutely meaningless; he has the morals of an
alley cat; and he will sell America’s sovereignty to an international
New World Order and turn our country into a police state. Christians, of
all people, should know better.
Newt Gingrich? Really?"
.JPG)