The Article I Would Have Written

While waiting to start a teleconference the morning after, the normally staid President of an oil & gas entity enthusiastically informed those of us already online of his eager anticipation of an election celebration at this house this coming weekend. Apparently the thought of Sarah Palin as his President had frightened him. I didn't take the bait, but it did occur to me that this had been the first election night in many years that I had little interest in following. I had gone to bed early and barely even thought about reading an election article when I awoke - no elation, no depression; no rejoicing, no regrets. Well, I must admit some small elation on reviewing the 435 page precinct by precinct digest of our county's election results. Our family accounted for 4 of the 7 votes for Baldwin in our precinct which itself had the largest raw Baldwin vote out of all 85 precincts in the county. I must also admit having a twinge of sadness thinking of all the people (especially in the church) who voted for occult communism (in the sense of hidden) thinking it was better than the overt communism of the other Demoblican candidate. It was almost enough to pull a blog post out of me.

But when I saw Chuck had published this article saying many of the things I was thinking, I figured I'd post it and go to bed early again. It's strikes a slightly angrier tone than I would, but not enough to lose any sleep over.

Conservatives Lost More Than An Election
By Chuck Baldwin November 7, 2008

That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He didn't. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a "wasted" vote, was it not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did. The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives. For all intents and purposes, conservatism--as a national movement--is completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed conservatism in America.
Soon after G.W. Bush was elected, it quickly became obvious he was no conservative. On the contrary, George Bush has forever established himself as a Big-Government, warmongering, internationalist neocon. Making matters worse was the way Bush presented himself as a conservative Christian. In fact, Bush's portrayal of himself as a conservative Christian paved the way for the betrayal and ultimate destruction of conservatism (something I also predicted years ago). And the greatest tragedy of this deception is the way that Christian conservatives so thoroughly (and stupidly) swallowed the whole Bush/McCain neocon agenda.
For example, Bush and his fellow neocons like to categorize and promote themselves as being "pro-life," but they have no hesitation or reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in reckless and unconstitutional foreign wars. By the same token, how many unborn babies were saved by six years of all three branches of the federal government being under the control of these "pro-life" neocons? Not one! Ask the more than eight million unborn babies who were killed in their mothers' wombs during the last eight years how "pro-life" George W. Bush and John McCain are.
As a result of this insanely inconsistent and pixilated punditry, millions of Americans now laugh at the very notion of "pro-life" conservatism. Bush and McCain have made a mockery of the very term.
Consider, too, the way Bush and McCain have allowed the international bankers on Wall Street to bilk America's taxpayers out of trillions of dollars. Yes, I know Obama also supported the Wall Street bailout, but it was the Republican Party that controlled the White House for the last eight years and the entire federal government for six out of the last eight years. In fact, the GOP has won seven out of the previous ten Presidential elections. They have controlled Supreme Court appointments for the past thirty-plus years. They have appointed the majority of Treasury secretaries and Federal Reserve chairmen. They have presided over the greatest trade imbalances, the biggest deficits, the biggest spending increases, and now the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.
Again, the American people look at these so-called "conservatives" and laugh. No wonder such a sizable majority of voters yawned when John McCain tried to scare them by accusing Barack Obama of being a "big taxer." How can one possibly scare people with a charge like that after the GOP has made a total mockery of fiscal conservatism? That's like trying to scare someone coming out from a swim in the Gulf of Mexico with a squirt gun.
Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as John McCain.
But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives--especially Christian conservatives--surrendered their principles for the sake of political partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!
In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S. Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.
The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.
Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey Graham, of course.
Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham! No matter. A majority of evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted for Graham.
Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth, and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.
Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W. Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to blame but themselves.
And since it is unlikely that the Republican Party has enough sense to understand any of this and will, therefore, do little to reestablish genuine conservative principles, it is probably best to just go ahead and bury the scoundrels now and move on to something else. Without a sincere commitment to constitutional government, the GOP has no justifiable reason to ever govern again. Therefore, put a fork in them. They are done. Let a new entity arise from the ashes: one that will stand for something more than just "the lesser of two evils." As we say in the South, That dog just won't hunt anymore.

In case you're wondering, Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included- which is here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

The title is a direct link to this article.

Wasted Third Party Votes

The intramural debate among Christians over third party candidates is underway once again. When I first voted outside the Demoblican party, I don’t remember any serious discussions about such things among Christians. Their response to my third party comments, if there was any at all, was simply, “Huh ???”

But over the 6 intervening presidential election cycles the debate has matured considerably. Now I hear Christians contemplating complicated electioneering strategies (like switching parties to vote for the other party’s worst candidate in the primary in the hope they will win the nomination and set up an easier race in the fall) or asserting that a vote for a good third party candidate is really a vote for the worst candidate. To which my response was, “Huh???”

So in an effort to catch up to my more articulate brothers and sisters on this quadrenially important topic, I sat down tonight, after spending the day painting a large sign for my favorite candidate which will be mounted on the main traffic artery through our town, and tried to improve my contribution to this discussion.
On voting for the candidate who can’t win …

• Elections are not a horse race where voters try to pick the winning ticket.


• Elections are a wheelbarrow race where voters make the winner.


• Not voting for a good candidate because he is not expected to win is giving up before the wheelbarrow race is over.


• Choosing the lesser-of-two-evils over a good candidate because no else is voting for him is being controlled by peer pressure like a junior high socialite.

On voting for the lesser of two evils …

• If you vote for the lesser of two evils for President, you’ll always have an evil President.


• You can’t expect God to provide you with a good President when you vote for an evil one any more than you can expect God to provide you with daily bread when you sleep all day instead of working.


• Voting for the lesser of two evils disobeys the admonition in Exodus 18:21 to choose good men (i.e. able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness) to exercise civil rule.


• A vote for the lesser of two evils is doing evil in the hope of stopping evil.


• A vote for the lesser of two evils is a wasted vote in getting a good candidate elected.


• Voting for the lesser of two evils in the hope of avoiding a greater evil is like stealing food in order not to starve.


• Defining an election in terms of the lesser of two evils is like falling for the false dilemma of values clarification exercises where 5 people are stranded in a lifeboat with supplies for 4 and thinking that one person should be thrown overboard (regrettably, of course) in order to keep the other 4 alive.


• Voting for a good candidate instead of the lesser of two evils is not a vote for the greater of two evils, anymore than keeping 5 stranded people on a lifeboat for 4 is choosing to kill 5 people.

A vote for a good candidate is, as should be obvious, simply a vote for a good candidate.

Of course, I suspect the real issue is that lesser-of-two-evil voters do not really believe they are choosing the lesser to two evils. They believe they are choosing a basically good candidate who, while qualified for office, is simply not everything they might desire in an ideal candidate.
Whether someone is a qualified candidate (i.e. good) or an unqualified candidate (i.e. evil) who is simply less evil than another depends on the positions and records of each candidate and can‘t be answered by armchair logic. It requires digging into the gritty details. Let's look at main party options.

One option in this election is Barrack Hussein Obama.
There are some professing Christians who think Obama is the best choice for Pro Lifers (e.g., the Matthew 25 Network endorsed by Douglas W. Kmiec, a former assistant attorney general under President Reagen) because under an Obama presidency there would be fewer abortions than under a McCain presidency. The reasoning of these people is that free government health care would reduce the number of unsupported mothers who abort their babies because they are able to properly care for them. In addition better access to birth control would reduce the number of unwanted babies and thus reduce the number of abortions. This sounds a lot like the “A vote for a good third party candidate is a vote for Obama” logic. I don’t think I buy it here either.

A vote for Obama is a vote for someone who believes it’s okay to murder unborn babies.

Another self-professed pro-life, pro-Obama Christian is Frank Schaeffer, son of the late Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer. He thinks Obama is the best candidate for pro-lifers because he would lead the nation to where life is actually valued not just talked about. (See his article Pro-Life and Pro-Obama.) However, that seems hard to reconcile with Obama’s well known voting record on abortion legislation and his comments on the floor of the Illinois Senate against the Illinois born alive legislation that mandated caring for babies born alive despite efforts to kill them in utero (Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor).

What ever else this man believes, he clearly condones the practice of murder and that alone disqualifies him from being a civil magistrate according to Exodus 18:21.

Another option is John McCain, regarded by many as the lesser of two evils.
Some Christians argue that we should vote for him, despite his many weaknesses, because he will appoint better judges. With McCain appointed judges, the argument goes, we’re more likely to maintain our freedom to homeschool, own guns, and evangelize, and there is a better chance Roe v. Wade could be overturned. People can say that our freedoms are safer with a McCain presidency just like Frank Schaeffer can say fewer babies would be aborted under Barrack Obama. But the question is, “What are the facts?”

Here are a few for your consideration:
Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidential candidates who were deemed the lesser of two evils (Ford, Reagen, Bush, and Bush). It hasn’t resulted in overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, some of their appointees are even considered “Liberals.”

Under lesser of two evil presidents we have continued to fight unconstitutional and unbiblical wars, preemptively invading other countries for various reasons like possession of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we have weapons of mass destruction too. Does that mean China is entitled to invade us because they feel threatened by our weapons of mass destruction? If not, then why is it any more right for us to invade Iraq simply because we feel threatened by their weapons?

War involves killing other people. This is Biblical when it is in self-defense. To say a war is not justified is to say we are intentionally killing people without Biblical justification to do so. That’s murder. If the invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11, why had the President (a lesser of two evils candidate) completed plans for an Iraqi regime change 8 months before September 11, 2001? (See The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, p75, 160.) Obviously the purpose for the war had nothing to with terrorists flying planes into American buildings.

Since McCain has the same foreign policy advisors as President Bush ( See Pat Buchanan's article None Dare Call It Treason ), there is every indication he intends to continue fighting unconstitutional wars.
Under lesser of two evil presidents the absorption of the US military, economy, and legal system into the global military, economy, and legal system has progressed at the same pace as under the “avoid at all cost” Presidents. In fact, if anything, it has proceeded at a faster pace under the Bush regimes than under the Clinton Presidency.



Lesser-of-two-evil presidents have increased the national debt faster than our avoid-at-all-cost President with Reagan and G.W. Bush being the worst offenders. (Graph courtesy of zfacts.com accessed October 11, 2008.)


What expectation is there that McCain will be any different?


A sampling of McCain’s senate votes shows:

• March 6, 2003 – Roll Call 43. Voted to support the continuation of the decades-old U.S. program for “general and complete disarmament” originally proposed in the well known 1961 State Department document Freedom From War (Department of State Publication 7277). The ongoing goal of that plan is to disarm all countries, including the U.S., to “a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.” You can read the complete document at the state department archives: Freedom From War.


• May 23, 2003 – Roll Call 196. Voted against the tax cuts in the Conference Report of HR 2.


• May 23, 2003 – Roll Call 203. Voted to raise the debt ceiling by $984 billion in H. J. Res. 51.


• July 31, 2003 – Roll Call 318 & 319. Voted to support free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile, laying stepping-stones to full implementation of FTAA and the complete relinquishment of economic sovereignty (H.R. 2738 & H.R. 2739). For example, see Why say no to FTAA or John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.


• October 30, 2003 – Roll Call 420. Voted to impose restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases under the mistaken notion that global warming is the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Not only is this bad science (See http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm ), it is also contrary to the constitution as such authority is not granted to the Congress anywhere in Article 1, Section 8.


• November 6, 2003 – Roll Call 444. Voted to appropriate $80 billion for aid to farmers, rural development and nutrition programs. Essentially this is giving money to people for not working. It is not biblical (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12), it’s not constitutional, and it’s not fiscally responsible.


• March 16, 2005 – Roll Call 52. Voted to remove language in S. Con. Res. 18 that would allow leases for oil & gas exploration in ANWR effectively preventing development of domestic energy resources. In November he voted a second time to prevent drilling in ANWR (Roll Call 288) .


• June 30, 2005 – Roll Call 170. Voted for CAFTA. The goal of the Central America Free Trade Agreement is to create a EU style economic union in the Americas, bringing American people under foreign courts and trade rulings.


• March 2, 2006 – Roll Call 29. Supported the continuation of the Patriot Act (H.R. 3199). See Wikipedia's Controversial Invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act for a few examples of the abuses allowed under this act. To be fair, many of these abuses could have happened before this act. The Act simply woke people up to the existing state of affairs. But that doesn't make his vote any better.

According to the Congressional Quarterly, Senator McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. (see CG Voting Study)

Thinking McCain will be any different than Bush, is like Frank Shaeffer thinking that Obama will lead the nation to where life is valued not just talked about. His senate voting grade, as best I can gather, is about 45-50%. So obviously he’s made a few good votes as well. But that’s not saying much. The same could probably be said of almost all felons. They’ve probably obeyed as many laws as they have broken. Students that are wrong 50% of the time are considered bad students and are flunked at most schools. Why is it any different for senators?

How about voting for a good candidate? Thankfully we still have that option.

At Last, Some Facts!

We hear many opinions about media bias or lack thereof, but often see precious little data to prove anything one way or the other. Here is an interesting commentary based on a very large sample.




(Utube Link)

So Mr. Farah Doesn't Like Ron Paul

Seems Mr. Farah has lost any respect he might have had for Ron Paul because the Gentleman From Texas (as they refer to each other on the floor) adds earmarks for pork spending to bills that he then votes against, knowing that enough other congressman will vote for it to ensure its passing into law. This, according to Mr. Farah, is immoral politics at its worst and reduces Congressman Ron Paul to being no less guilty of picking taxpayer pockets than the rest of the beltway bandits.

Well, all I can say is, "I wish every congressman would follow Ron Paul's terrible example." I think it would end the unconstitutional practice of earmarks. Don't you?

Seems to me that Ron Paul has once again found an extremely clever solution to a very difficult problem: how to return the fruit of excessive taxation to its rightful owners without voting for unconstitutional government spending. My hat's off to you, Doctor. Bravo!

The day that there are insufficient votes to pass unconstitutional earmarks is the day there will be enough votes to repeal unconstitutional taxes and fiat money.

HSLDA and Mike Huckabee

For over a generation HSLDA has been a standard bearer in the Christian homeschool community, shining a beacon of hope and encouragement to many families seeking to honor the Lord in the education of their children. They have worked tirelessly and very successfully in the federal and state legistatures and judicatories to remove legal impediments to homeschooling.

However, their leadership with respect to the executive branch has been less helpful and even downright dissapointing. I was disappointed when they so strongly supported President Bush in the 2004 election instead of the much more qualified Michael Perouka. The disasterous presidency of George Bush in waging an unbiblical (unjust) war, promoting and signing secret unconstitutional laws in the name of preserving the very constitution he's destroying, and in significantly increasing the already astronomical debt has justified that concern and disappointment. According to Jesus, "...wisdom is justified of all her children." (Luke 7:35)

Recently their PAC endorsed Huckabee on the pragmatic grounds that he is the only candidate that can beat Clinton. However Huckabee has a number of troubling deficiencies in his positions and record as Governor.

• As governor, he worked to get a convicted rapist freed 25 years early. When the rapist continued to do what rapists do, he denied meeting with the state parole board in executive session contrary to state law. His denial is contradicted by 4 board members: Suttlar, Chastain, Pondexter on record and an additional member off record. See Dumond case revisited: A reminder of Huckabee's role in his freedom or The Complete Huckabee-Drumond Files or Documents Reveal Huckabee's Role in Serial Rapist's Release
• As governor he presided over tax increases that exceeded all his tax decreases to the tune of $500MM according a recent New York Times article earning him a lifetime grade of D from the free market CATO institute.
• As governor he criticized an Arkansas bill (Senate Bill 206) which would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote and forced state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally as being un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.
• Now he has received the endorsement of the NEA by a state board who appreciated his "strong views on public education."
• He believes every child regardless of their parents immigration status should receive a government education paid for by you and me.

These are not the sorts of positions that comport with either a constitutional or biblical understanding of civil government. The Club for Growth sums it up well in their overall assement of Huckabee saying,

Governor Huckabee’s record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.

The best spin one could put on this mixed bag is that in trying to be all things to all people he has lost his bearings and ceased to be a man of principle and integrity. This is not the character of a man I would like to see in the White House. How else could one claim to be a friend of homeschooling and a friend of the NEA? The NEA attempted to shutdown homeschooling nationwide in 1994 by forcing all teachers (including parents ) to be certified. Thankfully HSLDA was instrumental in getting those provisions of HR6 removed.

He doesn't even believe in the Genesis account of God creating the world in 6 days some 6000 years ago. If he wasn't an ordained gospel minister, I might not mention this. But his lack of belief undermines the gospel of which he claims to be a minister. If one doesn't accept a relatively young age for the earth, there are two choices and neither of them good. If he believes there were long ages before Adam, then he has death before the fall. This undermines the integrity of the gospel message that death is the result of sin. If he believes there were long ages after Adam then he undermines the integrity of the Genesis account of history. If you tell me I can't trust the Bible to be 100% accurate in Genesis, how do you expect me to believe that the NT message of Christ's death and resurrection is 100% accurate?

Some might ask, "Wouldn't you rather have him over Clinton?" Well, I'm no fan of Hillary; but if I were to compare 12 years under the Bushes to the 8 years under Bill Clinton, I'd take Bill. Why? Because Christians realized they had a man in the house they needed to keep an eye on and they did. It was under Clinton's watch that republicans finally regained control of the house after 40 consecutive years under Democratic control. Clinton did a number of bad things; many people associated with him mysteriously die. But the cumulative damage he did to America's economy and national sovereignty pale compared with the damage done by the Bush team.

Thus the following open letter to HSLDA:

December 20, 2007

Michael Smith
President, Home School Legal Defense
One Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, VA 20132


Dear Mr. Smith:

As a long time member of HSLDA and former CAP volunteer who was part of the defeat of HR6, I was very disappointed to receive the HSLDA PAC endorsement of Mike Huckabee for President. I grant he is a better candidate than some. But as one who has lobbied senators regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and authored a homeschooling polemic from the field of money, it is clear to me that of all the candidates, Ron Paul has both the best understanding of the issues facing our nation and the best solutions to those issues.

While Governor Huckabee appointed a home-schooling father to the Arkansas Board of Education, he also signed legislation that lowered the compulsory age from 6 to 5, as well as HB 1724, a bill which even HSLDA opposed (Court Report V15N3). While his supporters argue that signing the bill was necessary to prevent a worse bill from passing, I disagree. He could have vetoed it or let it become law without signing it. His signature on that bill demonstrates an unwillingness to stand on principles or an inability to stand up to those who don't. Even more troubling, the NEA, an organization inimical to homeschooling, has endorsed Governor Huckabee. Dr. Paul, on the other hand, wants to dismantle the federal Department of Education. He will never get an NEA endorsement because that desire is not an empty campaign promise. He consistently votes in accordance with his principles and has never voted for a tax hike. Such unwavering integrity has earned the respect of even those colleagues who disagree with him.

It's encouraging to know that Governor Huckabee is opposed to the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, but I prefer Dr. Paul's constitutional stance rejecting all UN resolutions and getting us out of the UN. And while Governor Huckabee believes that the Fair Tax would be better for homeschooling families in comparison to our current tax system, Dr. Paul's plan to abolish the IRS and repeal the fraudulently ratified 16th amendment would do even more to decrease our tax burden.

As a graduate of the Naval Academy, a former submarine officer, and student of military ethics, I appreciate Dr. Paul's clear understanding of just war and his willingness to apply this Biblical doctrine to our foreign policy. The depth of his thinking in this area stands in sharp contrast to Mr. Huckabee’s inability to give a constitutionally correct answer when asked about initiation of war during a recent debate. While Dr. Paul may not wear his Christian faith on his sleeve, I think many of his positions are far more Biblical than Mr. Huckabee's. In addition, Dr. Paul's family represents the fruit of a godly man.

Pragmatic support of a candidate with significant deficiencies because he is the best “electable” candidate is not the type of thinking that threw off British tyranny and won our independence. "Give me liberty or give me death" type of thinking rallied Americans to the cause of freedom. As Patrick Henry College’s namesake said, “It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentleman may cry peace, peace – but there is no peace. The war has actually begun. ... Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery [aka The Patriot Act]?”[1]
But far from being unelectable, Ron Paul is a top tier candidate. He recently raised more actual money in one day than any other primary candidate in US history, he has more grass roots support than any other candidate (what other candidate can raise $6MM in one day from small individual donations), he has motivated more unregistered citizens to register than any other candidate, he has more meet-up groups than any other candidate, and has such strong support that he places on political polls in which he is not even listed. Ron Paul is uniting a divided country.

I have followed Ron Paul's voting record since his first Congressional term in the mid 1970's. His consistent principled voting won my admiration then; his unwavering commitment to those same principles 30 years later has only increased my enthusiastic support, and made him the first political candidate to whom I have ever donated. Dr. Paul is a upright man who fears God, hates covetousness (big government), and speaks the truth regardless of what the polls might be saying. I will vote for Dr. Ron Paul for President of the United States knowing this is one man I can depend on to do after the election exactly what he promised before the election.

I ask the HSLDA PAC to reconsider their endorsement in favor of Dr. Ron Paul.

Thank you for your time.
For Christ’s Crown & Covenant,

Peter S. Allison

[1] Henry Wirt, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches, Vol. 1. , [Charles Scribner & Sons, 1891], p 266.