Follower of The Way

Which Kingdom Are You Advancing?

Posted in Christ and Culture,Christian Theology,Government & Politics by sosipater on May 3, 2008

Conservative religious people involved in kingdom-of-the-world thinking often believe that their enemies are the liberals, the gay activists, the ACLU, the pro-choice advocates, the evolutionists, and so on. On the opposite side, liberal religious people often thing that their enemies are the fundamentalists, the gay bashers, the Christian Coalition, the antiabortionists, and so on. Demonizing one’s enemies is part of the tit-for-tat game of Babylon, for only by doing so can we justify our animosity, if not violence, toward them. What we have here are two different religious versions of the kingdom of the world going at each other. If we were thinking along the lines of the kingdom of God, however, we would realize that none of the people mentioned in the above lists are people whom kingdom-of-God citizens are called to fight for.

Our battle is “not against flesh and blood”, whether they are right wing or left wing, gay or straight, pro-choice or pro-life, liberal or conservative, democratic or communist, American or Iraqi. Our battle is against the “cosmic powers” that hold these people, and all people, in bondage. Whatever our opinions about how the kingdom of the world should run, whatever political or ethical views we may happen to embrace, our one task of kingdom-of-God disciples is to fight for people, and the way we do it is by doing exactly what Jesus did. He defeated the cosmic powers of darkness by living a countercultural life characterized by outrageous love and by laying down his life for his enemies. So too, we contribute to the demise of the “power over” principalities that hold people in bondage when we refrain from judgment of others and rather extend grace to them, when we let go of anger toward others and instead “come under” them in loving service.

A person may win by kingdom-of-the-world standards but lose by the standards that eternally count-the standards of the kingdom of God. We can posses all the right kingdom-of-the-world opinions on the planet and stand for all the right kingdom-of-the-world causes, but if we don’t look like Jesus Christ carrying his cross to Golgotha-sacrificing our time, energy, and resources for others-our rightness is merely religious noise. Jesus taught that there will be many who seem to believe the right things and do religious deeds in his name whom He will renounce, for they didn’t love him by loving the homeless, the hungry, the poor, and the prisoner (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:41-46; cf. Luck 6:46-49). However right we may be, without love we are simply displaying a religious version of the world, not the Kingdom of God. – Author Anonymous (for now).

I am going to let the author of the above quote from a book I am reading remain anonymous for now. If you know the answer, feel free to guess. I may give you a prize, or a copy of the book if you want it. The author up to this point has decribed what he sees as the differences between the Kingdom of God, which Jesus initiated at his first coming, and the kingdom of the world, which is ruled primarily by the forces of evil and is characterized by the exact opposite traits as God’s kingdom. It has been an interesting read and I am looking forward to finishing.

More to come.


How to engage in politics without losing your soul

Posted in Christ and Culture,Government & Politics by sosipater on April 7, 2008

Let me be honest.  Most things I see and read by Christians on politics I find to be tragically bad, especially these days.  I have strong interests in both so this is rather depressing for me, but I just read a great list and want to pass it on.

How to engage in politics without losing your soul. I think each point would be worth a complete post but I probably won’t get around to it.  Hope you enjoy it.

Stop Paying Taxes!

Posted in Government & Politics,Money by sosipater on April 2, 2008

quarterly-taxes1.jpgWell, at least stop making a lot of money. That is the thrust of this article over at CNN Money. It is an interesting read for those of us who are desirous not to fund our bloated and morally suspect “national” bureaucracy any more than we have to.

Kim Riddlebarger on Presidential Politics

Posted in Christ and Culture,Government & Politics by sosipater on January 8, 2008

Riddleblog has a good post about Governor Mike Huckabee and Presidential Politics.  The more I think and get involved with politics the more I am drawn to the two Kingdom approach, though that is not an endorsement by me.  But it does seem to protect the integrity of The Gospel and The Church better than the other Reformed view, whatever you want to call it.  Check out the post and as always if interested comment away.


Posted in Christ and Culture,Government & Politics,History by sosipater on December 12, 2007


War. Are there always wars and rumors of wars? Hasn’t war been in our nature since Adam and Eve sinned those many, many years ago. Think back to your history classes. What seems to be a common thread in them all? War.

Now in 2007 war is just as prevalent as always. The U.S.A. is engaged in a “war”. So how are Christians to think about war in general, and this specific war in Iraq?

Well, to help us think about this, I want to pass along a 15+ year old interview that based on the content could have been recorded yesterday. My friend BJ brought to my attention this interview with the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen conducted back during the first Iraq War. Dr. Bahnsen is known for his grasp of philosophy and apologetics, but to me he hits the ball out of the park in this interview. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Peacefully yours.

Continuing Toward a Biblical Theology of Political Engagement

Posted in Christ and Culture,Government & Politics by sosipater on November 13, 2007

Unless you have been under a rock you know that the Presidential Campaign here in the U.S. is in premature full swing. For the Christian who wants to honor Christ, this may bring about the unsavory idea of delving into a media induced coma in order to gain some sort of understanding of the issues and the candidates.

And for some of us, it makes us once again start thinking about the proper role that politics should play in a full orbed, 21st century, Americanized, Christian concept of faith and politics. And that my friends, isn’t always easy.

Some of you may know where my political bent is. I have definitely seen a shift politically over the last few months, from a card carrying neoconservative to what I guess could be called a paleoconservative, or perhaps a classical liberal (not to be confused with modern day leftest liberalism-see link for definition.)

But above political ideology, for the Christian, our faith and our worldview must must reign philosophically supreme. We should not necessarily do politics like everyone else, though common grace sometimes goes a long way in providing capable and just administrations of government. I have brought up the subject before of the politicization of sinful behavior and the detriment I think it can have on not only our Christian witness, but on our very souls. I see this in the bigoted and hateful way we as Christian can speak about those who are our neighbors that we are commanded to love, but we find that difficult when trying to force them to bend to our political wills. I see the inconsistencies of the pro-life movement that doesn’t seem to care about life that has already been born and living in the middle east. And fundamentally, at least in this country, I see Christians politically equate the United States with, well take your pick, either Old Testament Israel, New Testament Israel, or the New Jerusalem (that shining city on a hill).

It is with those thoughts going through my head that I commend an excellent article to you. “Add, don’t Subtract” by Marvin Olasky of World Magazine is a great read. It is a little long by internet standards, but well worth it in my opinion. I don’t agree with everything in it or his somewhat narrow focus (that being “what Christian conservatives should do”), but overall I think it is a great primer on thinking through U.S. politics and little more Biblically balanced.

I’m opening myself up here, but I would REALLY like to know what you think of the article. Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite.

The future of American conservatism depends on the ability of libertarians to understand that liberty without virtue cannot last, and the ability of Christian conservatives to understand that being strong and courageous does not mean demanding ideological purity. Both parts of the coalition need to follow the Reagan practice of reasoning politely and patiently with those who disagree, giving in on secondary matters, and searching for common ground. Both parts of the coalition may need to sacrifice a little.

My oversimplified advice to American Christian conservatives: Be New Testament, not Old Testament. By this I don’t mean that the two parts of revelation are theologically distinct, for as the couplet sums it up, “The New is in the Old contained, the Old is by the New explained.” I am suggesting that the emphasis is different: to generalize enormously, the Old concentrates on subtracting, the New on adding, and the success of the American experiment has hinged on our willingness to add.

The first concerns our culture wars. Year after year Christians have called for boycotts of this or that art exhibition, movie, or television show. For example, in 1999 Christian groups wanted government funding removed from a profane show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art that featured a dung-displaying portrait of the Virgin Mary. The protest led to front-page stories about Christians trying to keep people from viewing art, and to record attendance at the exhibit. It would have been far better to push for a parallel show displaying the work of Christian artists. In 2004 and 2005 we had such parallel shows in the movie theaters: Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (which reaped a rich bonanza in evangelism and ticket sales) and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Both Christian conservatives and libertarians could salute these examples of adding.

Few of my recommended actions would be sufficient for those who demand an Old Testament defense of America as the new holy land, but they’re consistent with the New Testament approach practiced by Paul and others in mixed cultures from Rome to the present: Instead of working fruitlessly to subtract evil from the land, add the good. American conservatism can have a bright future, with God’s grace, if we are strong and courageous in developing positive alternatives to the cultural negativities around us. But if we merely praise our own Christian circles and curse the darkness outside them, we will soon be surrounded by it.

Coram Deo.

UPDATE:  I forgot to give a Tar Heel Finger Point to Justin Taylor’s blog for the assist in bringing this article to my attention.  You can read his post here and for the record, I agree with the 1st comment on his blog.  More government is not the answer to our political problems in this country.  Good comment.

Doug Wilson on Pat Robertson’s Presidential Endorsement

Posted in Christ and Culture,Government & Politics by sosipater on November 7, 2007

Go Doug. I don’t think I could have said it ANY better myself. Though I disagree with Giuliani on not only his pro-choice but on practically every other issue also.

You know what evangelical acumen on cultural and political issues is like? It’s like a cold cup of coffee with a cigarette butt in it. It’s like drinking muddy water. It is like a watercolor left out in the rain. It is demented and twaddlesome. It’s things like this that leave me with that wet horse blanket taste in my mouth.

Truer words have rarely been spoken, though in my opinion this problem is far more rampant than just Pat Robertson.

Forgotten Henry

Posted in Books,Christ and Culture,Christian Theology,Government & Politics,History by sosipater on September 6, 2007

Check out Timmy Brister’s post on Carl Henry here.

Wilson on Political Power

Posted in Government & Politics by sosipater on August 16, 2007

Here is a good word from Doug Wilson on political power.  You can read the whole post here.  

But Christians need to recognize that wherever power accumulates, a certain kind of man will necessarily gather. Here in the dog days of summer, when we sit down to enjoy a dinner on the lawn, all we have to do to get yellow jackets to appear is sit down with a hamburger and a slice of watermelon. The yellow jackets know we are there within minutes. They know. And whenever a government gathers power to itself, whether in the name of right, middle, or left, cruel, ambitious, self-serving men will instantly gather.

Are You GLAAD?

Posted in Christ and Culture,Christian Theology,Government & Politics by sosipater on August 9, 2007

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Are U.S. television networks gay enough? Not yet, but ABC is getting close, according to a gay-rights group.The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has given the Walt Disney Co.-owned network the highest marks of any of the five major broadcast networks in the group’s first-ever report rating depictions of gay, lesbian and transgender characters and issues on prime-time TV.

Move over Neilson ratings, make room for the GLADD rating system.  You can read the whole article here.  This isn’t such a crazy idea, at least from the homosexual person’s point of view.  We Christians do the same thing with TV stations.  The question is, how do we as Christians communicate our disagreement with homosexuality without seeming like hatemongers who want to stone every gay person in sight?

I have been thinking about this and wonder if the politicization of personal sins like homosexuality has really hurt our witness and hurt our ability to love and be salt and light to those who have given into to the sin of homosexuality.  It is so hard to minister to this group of people when we spend all day getting so worked up over banning gay this and banning gay that.  I mean think about it.  Doesn’t that mindset and goal just make you really mad and angry all the time?

Now, I am not necessarily saying it is wrong to want to see sinful actions illegal, but considering the type of government we have, should we allow the government to make this decision for people?  Isn’t it the Churchs’ job to pronounce what is right and wrong for individuals to do in their bedrooms, not the government?  I’m just thinking out loud here.  This is really two major questions.  Number one, how do we hate the sin but love the sinner enough to be salt and light, and two, what are the spheres of responsibility for the church and the government in this issue.  I’m open to hear your ideas on this.

Founders QOD

Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on July 26, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens….There has never been a moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends & books.”

— Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Melish, 13 January 1813)

Founders QOD

Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on July 20, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

— James Madison (speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, 2 December 1829)

Reference: resp. quoted

Founders QOD

Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on July 17, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“It is not necessary to enumerate the many advantages, that arise from this custom of early marriages.  They comprehend all the society can receive from this source; from the preservation, and increase of the human race.  Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society.  In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage.”

— Samuel Williams (The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 1794)

Reference: American Political Writing during the Founding Era: 1760-1805, Hyneman and Lutz, ed., vol. 2 (952)

Founders QOD

Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on July 13, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

— Thomas Jefferson (fair copy of the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 1798)

Reference: respect. Quoted


Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on July 10, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter
cannot exist without them.”

— Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Reference: Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 191.

The Devolution of Liberty

Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on June 29, 2007

From:  The Patriot Post Digest


The roots of liberty— “The unanimous Declaration…”

The roots of liberty and American government run deep—back to the year 1164 in Clarendon, England. At that time, the idea of democratic republicanism and the liberal state could hardly be imagined. The student of English history will remember this as the place and date of the Constitutions of Clarendon, which struck the decisive blow in the battle over royal prerogatives between Henry II, King of England, and Thomas a Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Installed as a puppet, Becket had found true faith and refused to bow to the whims of a tyrannical king. Becket’s refusal to sign and submit to the Constitutions of Clarendon forced him into exile and, ultimately, led to his assassination at the hands of Henry’s knights—hardly a picture of democratic process.

Clarendon has been remembered as a loss of rights for the church, a triumph of the secular over the sacred. However true this interpretation of events may be, Clarendon’s significance for the movement toward the modern liberal state is equally important. With Clarendon, the English church would no longer be able to use excommunication to enforce its temporal demands over the subjects of the crown. Rather, trial by jury began to remove arbitrary justice from the hands of bishops and kings alike, replaced by justice dispensed under a code of law administered by fellow citizens. Despite Henry’s dubious intentions, Clarendon begins to delineate the modern relationship between church and state: Civil law, not Rome, would hereafter govern temporal affairs.

Half a century later, in 1215, the next major leap forward in modern liberal governance would be ushered in with Magna Carta, the “Great Charter,” issued by King John of England at the demand of his rebellious barons. Magna Carta was reissued several times and comes to us in its final form, issued in 1297 by Edward I, John’s grandson. Though the context for Magna Carta is a very different one, it is nonetheless an important corrective to the abuses of Clarendon, establishing the inviolable freedom of the Church of England from the English crown. If Clarendon protected the state from the church, Magna Carta protected the church from the intrusions of the state.

Far from limited to church-state relations, Magna Carta formalized the fundamental rights enjoyed by all citizens of the modern liberal state. Among others, Magna Carta codified the following: rights of inheritance, property rights, protections for debtors, the rights of localities to a degree of self-government, trade rights, retributive justice (designing punishments to fit the crime, as opposed to one punishment for all crimes), protections for citizens from the abuses of domestic authorities, requirements of witnesses to establish guilt, and the right to trial by one’s peers. Most important, however, was the heart of Magna Carta, which established the objective rule of law over and above the subjective rule of the king. Rex Lex (“The king is law”) was slowly being replaced by Lex Rex (“The law is king”). With Magna Carta, the king was bound under the law by a national covenant—a declaration of mutual obligations of the ruler and those ruled to one another.

John Locke would articulate this contractual vision of a government of laws existing to protect the liberties of its citizens in his Second Treatise on Government (1690). The context for Locke’s thought was the Glorious Revolution (1688) and the English Bill of Rights (1689), in which William and Mary of Orange affirmed the limits of government, protecting the liberties of its citizens and correcting the gross abuse of royal power under James II.

It is in this setting that Locke summarizes the purpose of the state. In Chapter 9 of his Second Treatise, “Of the Ends of Political Society and Government,” Locke writes on the preservation of property, concluding that men come together and subject themselves to laws. Governments exist to judge and enforce this rule of law. In this way men voluntarily covenant together to form governments, each surrendering some freedom in order to preserve the liberty of all. The one (the state) and the many (its members) thus mutually serve the cause of liberty.

When the Stamp Act was passed for the American colonies in 1765, when courts of admiralty enforced justice without trial by jury and a standing army held in the colonies during a time of peace, the purpose of government to guarantee the liberties of its citizens was foremost in the minds of many colonists.

The First Continental Congress met in October 1774 to seek redress for the colonies’ grievances. Their Declaration and Resolves laid claim to the rights that had evolved over the centuries, from Clarendon to the English Bill of Rights. The colonies are entitled, Congress declared, to “life, liberty and property,” and “they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.”

When the British crown and parliament refused to recognize the equal rights of the colonists as British citizens, the Americans seized upon another essential feature of the idea of government as covenant: If a government ceases to exist under its obligations to its citizens as the preserver of liberty, then the contract is broken and the citizens reserve the right to abjure that delinquent government. In other words, government is by consent of the governed.

Over the course of America’s struggle for independence, this theme would be rearticulated and expanded upon by some of the colonies’ greatest minds: Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, Thomas Jefferson’s Lockean forerunner to the colonies’ Declaration of Independence; Patrick Henry’s Resolutions of the Stamp Act (1765) and his later cry of, “Give me liberty or give me death!” (1775); Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776) and The Rights of Man (1792); and Samuel Adams’ speech at the statehouse in Philadelphia (1776), to name a few. Government is a covenant, they said, and a covenant cannot be broken without consequence.

Later, these Patriots would turn from justifications for their declaration of independence from the old government to articulations of what should replace it. The 12 years between the institution of the Articles of Confederation (1777), which maintained the maximal autonomy of the individual states, and the ratification and implementation of the United States Constitution (1789), which would turn a confederation of states into a federal republic, where punctuated by heated debate about the sustenance of liberty under any unified government.

Having thrown off one tyrannical government, federalists, who advocated a strong central government, and anti-federalists, who advocated states’ rights, were sharply divided as to the powers of the new government. Which model would better guarantee the objective of a government existing to preserve the liberties of its citizens?

The federalists won that debate, but two centuries later, it is clear that many of the elements of a “tyrannical government” have re-emerged, as predicted by anti-federalist protagonist Thomas Jefferson. Most notably, Jefferson warned that the judiciary would become a “despotic branch” and that the Constitution would be “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Indeed, the despotic branch has twisted and shaped our government’s foundational document into what in now called in common parlance, a “Living Constitution”, effectively undermining “Constitutional eisegesis”—the constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as written and ratified.

If the Constitution can be amended by judicial diktat rather than as prescribed by law, then we are a nation governed by men rather than the law, and the consequences are dire.

Where does that leave us today? Few who serve in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of our national government honor their oaths to “support and defend” our Constitution.

Of course, the Constitution is subordinate to the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution’s author, James Madison, wrote Thomas Jefferson on 8 February 1825 these words concerning the supremacy of the Declaration of Independence over our nation’s Constitution: “On the distinctive principles of the Government… of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in… The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”

The Declaration elucidates “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It also records “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Liberty is elusive, and awaits its next great leap forward.


Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on June 29, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.”

— John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

Reference: The Works of John Adams, Charles Adams, ed., 225.


Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on June 25, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

— Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1778)

Reference: The Debates of the Several State…, Elliot, vol. 3 (51)


Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on June 22, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion.  Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

— Benjamin Rush (On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1806)

Reference: Original Intent, Barton (153); original Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosohpical, Rush (8)

My Last Ron Paul Post…

Posted in Government & Politics,Miscellaneous by sosipater on June 20, 2007

here at Follower of The Way.  While I still believe politics, i.e. justice, is a very important component of a robust Christian worldview, I think the amount of information I would like to disseminate about Ron Paul would be distracting from this blog.

So, this will be my last post about Ron Paul here, but…


 You can find me also at

Please bookmark and/or subscribe to keep up with the Ron Paul campaign.

You have GOT TO WATCH THIS! Fox News hates Ron Paul

Posted in Government & Politics by sosipater on June 19, 2007


Posted in Government & Politics,History by sosipater on June 19, 2007

Founders’ Quote Daily

“The state governments have a full superintendence and control over the immense mass of local interests of their respective states,
which connect themselves with the feelings, the affections,the municipal institutions, and the internal arrangements of the whole population. They possess, too, the immediate administration of justice in all cases, civil and criminal, which concern the property, personal rights, and peaceful pursuits of their own citizens.”

— Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Reference: Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 191.

Is Ron Paul Disqualified to be President of the USA?

Posted in Government & Politics by sosipater on June 18, 2007

According to Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, this is the case.  Why you may ask?  Well, you can read his article here, but apparently he believes that invading and occupying Iraq is equivalent to protecting the USA against Muslim terrorists, and that giving the government more and more power over immigration is the answer to our problems in that area.  So, more government in Iraq and more government here is our answer.  Did I fail to mention he is for small government?  Really???

Well, Anthony Wile disagrees with Mr. Farah.  If you read the Farah’s article then read Wile’s response here.  From his article:

We don’t find or reinforce freedom by longing for simpler times, or even passing laws to “reinforce” traditional “values.” Such values cannot, in fact, be legislated because it is the government passing the legislation that is the problem.

It is true that the bulwarks of republican, “free,” societies are strong families and religion, among other things. But it is government itself, especially modern government, that is perpetually at war with the family unit and non-government initiated spirituality.

Thus, when Joseph Farah says Ron Paul is “disqualified” for him as a presidential candidate, I wonder why – and how – Mr. Farah has come to this conclusion. It seems to me to be a conclusion rooted in modern and even facile – as opposed to historical – assumptions.

This quote comes after Mr. Wile tries to delve a little bit into the philosophical and historical roots of this debate.  Great stuff.  Hope you enjoy it.

Interview with Dr. Paul

Posted in Government & Politics by sosipater on June 18, 2007

Check out this interview with Ron Paul.  Sound bite answers but you get the general idea.

Items discussed:

  • Ron Paul electibility
  • National Borders
  • Mainstream Media Blackout
  • Rush Limbaugh (Who cares?)
  • Opposition to military occupations – A Democratic position?
  • Intellectual Property
  • Abortion and the Libertarian Party
  • Immediate Presidential Goals
  • Mexicanada States of America
  • Being a non-interventionist Republican Candidate

Demand it! – Ron Paul in Savannah, GA

Posted in Government & Politics by sosipater on June 15, 2007
Next Page »