This article appeared this morning from Janet Folger, the President and founder of Faith2Action.
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2689/Janet_L_Folger
To anti-Huck rock throwers
Christians sat it out in 2006 to “teach Republicans a lesson.” But we’ve been taught well what happens when we stay home on Election Day. In case you’ve forgotten, here’s a three-point refresher course:
- We’ve got hate crimes hanging over our heads like a guillotine. The Criminalization of Christianity stalled in Congress only to make the promised presidential veto tougher to carry out since it’s attached to critical resources for our troops.
- The so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which results in “the ENDA religious freedom” in the workplace stalled only because they want to force cross-dressers into businesses who don’t want Bruce to come to work wearing lipstick and stilettos.
- Then we have a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that just passed the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) 17 to 4, which would turn over our oceans – three-fourths of our planet – to U.N. control complete with a U.N. world tax. Why would anyone other than Nicholas Carpathia (the Antichrist in the “Left Behind” series) want such a thing?
(Column continues below)
To respond to these assaults, see the three bullets below:
- Call the president and ask him to veto so called “hate crimes” (and ENDA) – 202-456-1414.
- Call your congressional representative at 202-224-3121 to stop the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so you won’t be forced out of business.
- Call your two senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to stop the Law of the Sea Treaty, which mandates U.N. global taxation and control.
Are you sick of it? Sick of making calls just so we won’t go to jail, lose our businesses and be forced to pay a global U.N. tax? Me too.
I suggest we do something pro-active about it. Gov. Mike Huckabee, who answered all of those issues right at the Values Voter Presidential Debate, has also never wavered on critical issues of life, marriage and the courts. He answered the toughest questions from pro-family leaders 100 percent right on Sept. 17 – including those on the North American Union and on immigration. Against all odds, he is now a “tier one” candidate – the only one who stands unwavering for life, marriage, freedom and the kind of judges we need on the courts.
Look, you can continue to throw rocks from the sidelines, but you know what I don’t see from any of the rock throwers? A solution. You can resign yourself to playing defense for the rest of your life, or you could do something proactive now.
I know of no other front-runner other than Mike Huckabee who will champion our causes of life, marriage, freedom and the courts. Here are the unacceptable alternatives:
- Mayor Rudy Giuliani: wrong on the Marriage Protection Act and wrong on the Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”
- Gov. Mitt Romney: Beyond his abysmal judicial appointments (including naming homosexual activists to the courts even AFTER his conversion on every major issue), he’s wrong on something even more basic: the Apostle’s Creed. The creed all Christians believe states: “I believe “… in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary …” Romney, as a Mormon, doesn’t believe Jesus was God’s only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his “brother”). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere “denominational difference,” don’t you think?
- Sens. Fred Thompson and John McCain: both wrong on the Marriage Protection Act that would keep states from redefining our most basic institution. Both have since turned their backs on the Terri Schiavos of the world.
- Rep. Ron Paul: In addition to being against the Marriage Protection Act, Paul is an evolutionist who wouldn’t protect the Terri Schiavos of the world from a starvation death because our Founding Fathers never thought to enumerate it in the Constitution. He also wants to legalize drugs and prostitution but wouldn’t enforce obscenity violations. Don’t believe me? See for yourself at ValuesVoterDebate.com.
- Hunter, Tancredo and Keyes are all great guys whose campaigns have no traction.
“Teach ‘em a lesson”? Did we learn nothing from 2006? Read the three bullets above to see the result of that “strategy.” Make the same mistake again, and those bullets will be aimed at you.
Put down the rocks and be a part of the solution: Go to www.MikeHuckabee.com and make the most generous donation you can now. Or don’t complain when you’re sent to jail, lose your business and are forced to pay a global U.N. tax.
We have one more chance to get our country and our courts back, and only one candidate we can count on to do it: Gov. Mike Huckabee – the solution to the issues we care most about.
November 7, 2007 at 8:47 am
Huckabee was squashed by Ron Paul’s recent fundraiser
Janet Folger misleads the people with sound bites.
Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and believes if we must defend life.
Christians have lost their moral authority in the United States because of George W Bush. The christian people are taking that authority back and had studied Pauls record and will make their own judgements.
Hucabee is a continuation of GWB and we have had enough.
This war is immoral. We can’t protect the unborn and at the same time kill others that never hurt us.
November 7, 2007 at 9:15 am
Actually, Huckabee hasn’t been squashed by fundraisers.
Quite the contrary, while Ron Paul has a lot of money, it’s not translating into votes.
How, pray tell, is Janet Folger misleading?
She accused him of opposing the Marriage Protection Act — which he does. Sure, that’s because he doesn’t think that the government has a role in marriage, but that’s a question of principles, not facts. He thinks that we should permit bigamy, polygamy, gay marriage, or anything that anyone else to do. If that’s your belief … fine. But don’t deny that it’s Ron Paul’s position.
She calls him an evolutionist. The only Presidential candidates who stated that they disbelieve evolution were Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee,and Sam Brownback. I’m not sure just how relevant this is, but the facts remain true.
She further accused him of not supporting people like Terri Schiavo. Did you see the Values Voter Debate? He said as much.
The rest of your argument is a valid discussion — though since it’s not Janet Folger’s point about Rep. Paul, I’m going to let it go here. I have other posts regarding Ron Paul where I would be happy to discuss anything.
… Has anyone noticed that a lot of Ron Paul posts hit on the same themes every single time?
I’m especially fond of the money points … Mitt Romney has a lot of money, too. Does that mean that I should support him, instead?
December 11, 2007 at 4:17 am
I doubt my reply to Folger’s site will get published – so I thought I’d paste it down here as well:
What a sad day that the bombastic niche of the ‘christian’ right would resort to lies, distortions, and red herrings in favor of human contrived ideals of dominionism, big government, straussianism, and unbiblical bastardizations of theonomy.
Fact – Ron Paul is not an evolutionist. Proof – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q
Ron Paul is not an advocate of gay marriage – as Folger slanderously implies. In fact, Ron Paul offers the only solution that has PROVEN to work in protection of traditional family values – let the states decide. Furthermore Ron demonstrates an ardent stand for the authority of Scripture by clearly proclaiming (in Folgers own debate), that marriage is defined by God – not the Federal government. He goes further to suggest that a marriage license is a question that needs spiritual examination. Do we want to place our marriage vows under the oath and witness of a secular state, or under the law and people of God as scripture commands?
Folger slanderously attempts to characterize Ron Paul as a man that is not pro-life, which is laughable. Paul’s stand on life regarding the Terri Schiavos of world is clear headed and the only one of the candidates in favor of the preservation of the lives of those like Terri. Paul opposes the use of judicial or legislative power to hold any say in the matter. To support such a fascist notion lends full grounds to the precedent of a sinister and opposite ruling. It is the slippery slope toward the growing secular support of eugenics. One has to wonder why CWN would give credence to such a horrid idea.
As far as the legalization of drugs and prostitution and obscenity laws, lets see what Paul says at this very debate: “IF YOU ARE WILLING TO USE THE STRONG ARM OF GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THINGS THAT ARE NEGATIVE THAT YOU DON’T LIKE AND YOU FIND ABHORRENT, YOU SET THE STAGE FOR REGULATING YOUR RELIGION, YOUR SCHOOLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BECAUSE THAT’S THE PRINCIPLE.” As Christians, our goals of moral reform will never be found in the pen and ink of a secular state. They are found through salt and light permeating the world with the precious liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. That is faith to action. Any other way is self destructive to the freedoms we currently hold dear, but are losing fast.
I find it shameful that the people of this organization have landed square in line with the anti-Christian tactics of the liberal big media in castigating a true champion of constitutional freedom and religious liberty as something worthy of opposing. May God have mercy on us, for we know not what we do!
December 11, 2007 at 4:27 am
“Slanderously implies”? Uh-huh … Have you ever wondered what the difference was between a Ron Paul spammer and a reasonable Ron Paul supporter?
Using phrases like “slanderously implies” would be one good sign.
Why, pray tell, would you write and post a comment that you expect not to get printed? Why not try writing something reasonable that will make it to the site?
Another claim that I keep seeing from Ron Paul supporters is:
{Paul’s stand on life regarding the Terri Schiavos of world is clear headed and the only one of the candidates in favor of the preservation of the lives of those like Terri.}
Ummm … at the Values Voter Debate, Ron Paul stated that he would not support any government action that would have saved her life. What are you trying to say? How is he going to preserve her life if he lets her die?
As I’ve said before — Ron Paul is neither insane nor a jackass. However, he has supporters who act like they are, and that makes a poor reflection on him.
December 11, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I’ll say it again to answer your Schiavo question: “Paul opposes the use of judicial or legislative power to hold any say in the matter. To support such a fascist notion lends full grounds to the precedent of a sinister and opposite ruling. It is the slippery slope toward the growing secular support of eugenics.” …and might I add…that is spearheaded by the federal government in the courts and legislature.
Your right there is no misrepresentation of Paul in her article – and I’m a total jackass as you’ve soundly demonstrated. Good call.
December 12, 2007 at 8:20 am
Well, ummm … okay.
I really wasn’t trying to guess as to your character. I was thinking that you were caught up in excitement and overdoing it. If that’s just who you are, then, never mind that point.
Your argument, that using the government to protect life will lead to fascism, is what’s laughable. We seem to have survived the abolition of slavery. I think that we can survive the protection of life.