This is an oldie but goody, written by Chuck before I started this blog.
My opinion follows Chuck’s article.
From: News with Views
WHY DO EVANGELICALS IGNORE RON PAUL?
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2007
Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.
The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.
For example, Jerry Falwell’s widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled “Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates.” A total of ten Republicans made the Journal’s list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.
However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell’s list. Why is this? Why do evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?
Ron Paul received his Bachelor’s degree from Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air National Guard.
Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.
Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul’s commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.”
Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals’ pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)
In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.
Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.
For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative’s conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?
The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today’s evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul’s willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.
Another reason might be that today’s evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.
Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell’s National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich “a true American statesman.” McCain is called “pro-life.” Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don’t be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain’s strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, “Gov. Romney . . . shares our values.” Of Giuliani, NLJ states, “On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives.”
However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.
Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to “pick a winner.” Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don’t expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.
However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America’s evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.
As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush “one of us,” they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.
I agree with what Chuck says above, but would add this.
I think the main reason most evangelicals wouldn’t even consider Ron Paul was that he was and is too biblical.
Clearly, Ron Paul actually believes in actually doing what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Ron Paul wasn’t pro-reverse-Christian-war enough. Ron Paul believes in treating people equally, in loving all of our neighbors as ourselves.
Ron Paul is too pro-life. He’s fully pro-life, not stopping at just standing up to protect the unborn, but Ron Paul believes we also shouldn’t be bombing children and full grown people, regardless of their skin color or their religion. War is a last resort for Ron Paul. Ron Paul isn’t a striker (one of the qualifications for church leadership that Paul states in 1 Tim. 3:3, which alone disqualifies most pastors, those who support the immoral, reverse-Christian wars — willing to treat others differently than they would want to be treated).
Ron Paul is power under, not power-over. Ron Paul is a libertarian (liberty), not desiring to bully others. We shouldn’t be pushing people around, making people do what we’d like them to do. We should stick to the Constitution and not go beyond it.
And he’s not into revenge (ie: evangelicals, their pastors and 9/11).
So it is my opinion that Ron Paul is too biblical for most evangelicals. Ron Paul won’t push their unbiblical, power-over, reverse-Christian agenda.
How can this be? The only possible answer seems to be that most evangelicals have lost their soul, whether born-again or not. Being born-again is just the start. Most evangelicals aren’t abiding in Christ, which Jesus lays out in John 15, where He says to abide in Him we must love one another. Otherwise, we’ll be thrown into the fire and burned. We must bear fruit because we’re connected to the Vine. In this, the Bible is consistent. See: Who-Goes-To-Heaven Scriptures — Narrow is the Way | Who are the Children of God?
God gave us Ron Paul, and the ‘church’ rejected God’s gift to US. So now, ‘Let Us Be ONE’ Prophecy Continues 10/8/08: “It’s TOO LATE to REVERSE what’s been done for MY MEN have been REJECTED … Now is the Time to OVERCOME and GET RIGHT With ALL … FREEeeeeeeeeeeeee———DOM at last … Your HEART will SWELL with LOVE and it will be EASY to REMAIN In Me when others are On The BOAT With You”
What we should be focusing on now is getting real Christianity going, because America is going down, having rejected Ron Paul, the peacemaker.
It’s time to get right with God and each other.
Sarah Palin demonstrates why most evangelicals dissed Ron Paul, who wanted to bring the troops home. ‘Christians’ have two sets of books: one for US and one for THEM (“who don’t deserve rights”). THEY’re not our ‘neighbor’ whom Jesus commanded US to love as much as ourselves. Maybe that’s why most evangelicals refuse to investigate 9/11. If THEY didn’t take down the towers…???
4 thoughts on “Pastor Chuck Baldwin: Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul? | My Opinion”
The difference between Republican and Democratic parties is like comparing Aleister Crowley with Madam Blavatsky. There is no difference and the spirit is the same. I don’t even think Ron Paul would live up to his promises. J.F.K. was the last President who tried to make a real difference and he was shot for his efforts. These men who call themselves caucuses, in this day and age, are not bold enough to risk their lives for truth and equality and the constitutional ways of life.
I very much appreciate your comments. And I agree with most of what you say here, but I wouldn’t even think this about Ron Paul. That doesn’t mean I’m right, but this is my perspective so far. If you have reason to believe I’m wrong, I’d like to hear what you have to say.
I’ve followed Ron Paul extensively, 441 posts at ToBeFree now. This is something near and dear to my heart. I put a lot of work into this, and it was so sad to see how the evangelical leaders almost universally rejected him.
I can’t remember even a hint of him saying one thing and then doing another. It’s possible, but I haven’t seen it. And he knew he was risking his life even running for President. Here are just two examples:
Assassination: Ron Paul Considered Not Running
Estulin: Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul
Paul could have won had the evangelicals backed him. He was beating Giuliani, Pat Robertson’s favorite Fenske: Why is Pat Robertson Supporting Giuliani? at the start of the race:
Ron Paul on Beating Giuliani and Thompson… Again
Blatant Anti-Paul Media Bias: CNN Pie Charts [Iowa]
Considering the mostly media blackout on Ron Paul, imagine what could have happened had ‘Christian’ radio and TV given him air time. Imagine if “assassinate Chavez” Pat Robertson would have supported Paul from the get go, instead of Giuliani. What happened to Pat Robertson, anyway? He’s been instrumental in leading the ‘church’ down the wrong path in so many ways.
Ron Paul needed air time. He needed coverage. The evangelicals could have put him in the limelight, like they did Sarah Palin, who was running with the globalist neocon, John McCain, who is clearly a liar and an insider; though, Sarah called him a ‘maverick.’ We could also say: what happened to Sarah? I was so disappointed. I had enthusiastically supported her as Governor. But have my eyes been opened! So sad. It’s as if she was never taught the globalist agenda, so they’re actually using her to promote it.
I have categories on Sarah Palin and John McCain also at ToBeFree. I’m not saying anything that I haven’t already backed up. It’s important for ‘Christians’ to know what happened, how we’ve been led astray by preachers, whom I believe are the main problem in America: false doctrine taught by false teachers who aren’t abiding in the Vine, nor are they willing to listen to those who are.
I’ve also been trying to figure out what happened to the Republican party. I had been blissfully Republican until I began discovering what was really going on in the mid-’90s. Since then, I’ve been horrified to see the truth about the Bush family. George Bush Family is category at ToBeFree. Christians would be amazed if they only knew the damage this one Skull and Bones family has really done to this country, especially President Bush, Sr. It’s all at ToBeFree, and if Sonny Bono wouldn’t have been assassinated, it’s likely that the drug running at least would have been exposed (look up Sonny Bono at ToBeFree).
The church has been led astray, duped into supporting pure evil, the globalist agenda dressed up as Mom and apple pie.
President Reagan is a good example of someone who may have started with good intentions, but apparently he stepped right into line after they tried to assassinate him. He had no backbone; though, he was smooth. And he was a secret society member. There are photos of him at Bohemian Grove.
But here is the kicker as to how the Republican party lost its soul, if you or anyone else are willing to look into this. Of course, some Republican leaders started out corrupt, but what about the rest? What happened to the Republican party? It appears that many were intentionally compromised by sex parties, which are documented. But the globalist controlled media has kept the lid on it, and here is where the 501 (c) 3 thing has probably gagged pastors who should have said something. They’ve kept their mouths shut in order to preserve their tax exempt status.
It’s amazing how this 501 (c) 3 thing works. Pastors know they are safe when they support the establishment’s man, George W. Bush and John McCain being good examples. But what if they’d support Ron Paul? Chances are the IRS would come after them. I suppose this was another reason they washed their hands of Ron Paul, another indefensible reason.
Getting back to what happened to the Republican party, most evangelicals don’t have a clue as to how blackmailable many Republican politicians are. Many have been sexually compromised even into pedophilia. Thus I have the Republicans Blackmailable category at ToBeFree, which currently has 30 posts.
Compare this to Ron Paul: Ron Paul a modern day Joseph? Flees sexual immorality!
And here is vintage Ron Paul  Feisty Ron Paul Castigated for Opposing CIA Drug Running, Shouting for State’s Rights!, if you want to see the fire in his belly that has driven him into having the 100% Constitutional rating, described above. Most people don’t have a clue as to how tough this man really is. Ron Paul is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Watch him on the floor of the house. He just won’t sell out! Ron Paul is a hero!
As far as humans go these days, Ron Paul is almost 100%-perfect amazing! If he wouldn’t have fudged on 9/11 truth, I would give him a 100% rating. I saw him act like a politician regarding to this hot-button subject. Look at what happened to Debra Medina. Glenn Beck skewered her…. Ron Paul avoided this.
The media has has now tried to skewer Rand Paul over another hot-button issue. And interestingly, look at how Rand responded. He didn’t sell out, he stuck to his libertarian principles. I haven’t followed Rand hardly at all, though, but we can learn a lot about fathers by how their sons act.
My guess is that he regrets having not handled 9/11 truth differently. It would be great if Ron would apologize to his supporters who felt betrayed by how he did this. It was really messy. He could have handled this differently while still avoiding political suicide. I think he lost some integrity there. But that’s the only kink that I’ve seen. Ron was under a lot of pressure. He knew the media was ready to pounce, ready to label him an anti-American even more than they already were.
Having said that one caveat, I really believe that Ron Paul would have risked his life, sticking to his core principles as President, just like he’s been risking his life all along, standing up for what is right. As President, Ron Paul would have saved this country for now, or they would have killed him. He wouldn’t have backed down, which would have been very interesting to watch.
And how would this have affected the evangelicals who got him into office. Wouldn’t they so strong and proud — a leap in their step, a smile on their faces — having stood with integrity and won!
Instead, they’ve compromised and have supported evil. It seems that many ‘Christians’ live partially in denial to keep their hearts from being sick. And that’s why, I think, they avoid 9/11 truth like the plague. They won’t look at the evidence to even see if they could have been possibly wrong supported Bush wars I and II.
It all comes down to integrity in the ‘church.’ If we lived like Jesus said to live, evangelicals would have supported Ron Paul.
Ron Paul could have been a turning point for the ‘church.’ We could have become clean in especially our foreign policy — ‘Christians’ supporting reverse-Christian wars. If there was enough of a moral compass left in evangelicals (I’m not sure), had only a few key pastors spoken out, integrity could have returned to evangelicalism, politically. Sarah Palin was no excuse to support a candidate they couldn’t feel fully good about, who was the establishment’s other choice.
If the evangelicals would have supported Ron Paul in 2008, I think there would be a great chance that he would have become President, and that we could be kicking back right now, assured that we’re not on the verge of losing America.
Now, we’ll probably never feel that way again.
I’m not totally against Ron Paul. If, per se, his life was at risk for his efforts as a presidential candidate, then he was doing something right. Everyone else, including Sarah Palin, are nothing but puppets to a satanic oriented, diobolical system, which really isn’t true government. It’s a big joke to hear someone say they are a Democrat or a Republican. Both parties are nothing but a big front to the public, as if any one of them could really make a difference. The only 20th, 21st century president, who ever made a difference was JFK. But he was shot for his efforts to combat corruption.
I agree with you, except there may have been a few good Presidents in the early 20th century who were also good. Many of our Presidents have actually been outright treasonous, as Dr. Stanley Monteith has pointed out.
It’s amazing to me that even Eisenhower is suspect. It’s probable that he warned us about the military industrial complex because he was part of it:
President Eisenhower’s role in the CIA plot to assassinate the democratically elected leader of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, in 1960-61
[Video] “Death: Colonial Style”: The CIA, Eisenhower, the Belgians and the Assassination of the Democratically Elected Leader of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, 1961
Had Only America Known: U.S. Intelligence Assassinated General Patton, Who Wanted to Free Eastern Europe Before Coming Home
Here is my latest post on Ron Paul, who really has stuck to his guns:
Houston TV on Ron & Rand: After 22 Years in Congress, Ron Paul Still Sticking to his Guns — “I see politicians as pretty weak people because they just follow prevailing attitudes”