Christian Libertarians endorse Ron Paul

“LibertarianChristians.Org seeks to demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity and the libertarian philosophy, to bring about a greater understanding of the foundations of these United States and the limited government our founding fathers sought to create, a Constitutional Republic grounded in the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, and the personal responsibility recognized in our Christian walk.”

Source: Unofficial Ron Paul 2008 blog

19 Responses to “Christian Libertarians endorse Ron Paul”

  1. George Phillies Says:

    It is, of course, highly appropriate to be covering Republican News on Third Party Watch, because thanks to George Bush and the Republican neocon antifemale antigay warmongers the Republican Party has decided to commit suicide. Successfully.

    Libertarians who support Republicans are, of course, following an activity deprecated by Churchill, namely that it is unusual for things to be seen swimming towards a sinking ship.

    Good Libertarians may look forward to the day when the typical cartoonist draws the Republican elephant as an American elephant. The woolly mammoth. Majestic. Cuddly. Totally extinct.

  2. matt Says:

    If the libertarian party continues to wink at the warmongers in their midst, they too will be extinct. Ron Paul has come down clearly and aggresively against the greatest moral outrage of our time. Prioritize.

  3. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Well said, Matt!

  4. Robert Milnes Says:

    It’s ok, christian libertarians. Ron Paul is not going to win the gop nomination. We will forgive you & return to the fold.

  5. Joel Lemieux Says:

    Cynicism and defeatism are NOT options to be entertained.

    “We are in the eleventh hour of losing this Nation…”

    Consider the only Conservative Presidential Candidate…

    Welcome my name is: Joel Lemieux I am retired and currently live

    in the beautiful mountains of Western NC… I Have been an avid

    supporter of Dr Ron Paul… “We have to get Ron Paul elected,

    firstly and foremost, in the primaries”... Then on to the


    However, if this is to come about (Ron Paul 2008) we will require

    a war chest… We are attempting to get (1) one Million people to

    send Ron Paul only $7.00 each per Month… Thanks… Joel…

    [email protected]

    Meanwhile Consider The Following:

    Our Only Choice Leadership 2008

    Can Ron Paul Win? On The Issues - A Resounding YES!

    Knowing this let us then look at the most important benefit… that

    Ron Paul brings to the Presidency…


    Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position…

    (It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at the

    right time, neither define leadership).

    It is defined by setting the example through taking action on such

    Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity!

    Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:

    “Truthfulness” first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity,

    Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion,

    Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.


    Can anyone bring forth any other candidate (GOP or DEM, etc.) that

    can lay claim to all of these characteristics?

    I believe we are all hard pressed to do so… “Strike That”. I

    “KNOW” we ARE hard pressed!

    Check out this site it may give you some promo assistance… It

    has a promo area where everything can be printed out for free…

    It also has “send to friends” area for e-mailing… Hope this

    helps you …

    Get the word out “SHARE” with your friends… And don’t forget the

    $7 per Month “we all can afford that” remember each of us do not

    need to get thousands of people… just set a weekly goal and

    have any/all of your friends duplicate your efforts… It will be

    persistence and perseverance that will elect Ron Paul…

    PS: Start with flyers at the Universities put one on each and

    every bulletin board on campus also look for support from the

    student GOP… Then have them go to other campus’s… Also, don’t

    forget High School Seniors- by the time elections roll around they

    will be old enough to vote!

  6. Liberty Action Says:

    “Cynicism and defeatism are NOT options to be entertained.”

    Sorry about that! No one with Ron Paul’s record or platform will get an honest count.

  7. Anthony Distler Says:

    Sorry everybody! Ron Paul doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in Costa Rica in winning the Republican primary. He could have 20 billion dollars, and it won’t matter. The Republicans won’t elected anyone unless they want to “stay the course” in Iraq. That’s why McCain, Guiliani and Romney, three pro-war Republicans, are leading.

    The biggest issue to the American people and will be in 2008 is the war. Republicans want to keep it, and Democrats want to end it. Unless Ron Paul jumps in as the Libetarian Party candidate and brings in a lot of money, you minus well stick a fork in him, because no evangical and no pro-status quo Republican is going to give their vote to that guy.

  8. Trent Hill Says:


    Nearest I can tell—the LP is threatened by this. Get over yourselves. Ron Paul has a MUCH better chance of getting elected than Robert Milnes, Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Jerome Corsi, or Alan Keyes.

  9. Devious David Says:

    I think people are underestimating the possibility of Ron Paul’s potential to activate a number of constituencies. Those constituencies conceivably form a coalition amounting to a silent majority. In particular if there are enough Democratic voters out there who are intelligent enough to understand the politically strategic victory that crossing the line would produce.

    The bad news is that the powers-that-be have produced three candidates running identical campaigns on the Republican ticket. This will diffuse votes. The good news is that the powers-that-be have produced three candidates running identical campaigns that will possibly diffuse neocon votes. If those votes are cast fairly equally among them and most of the rest went to Ron Paul, then it is conceivable that he could win.

    For instance. If the GOP were 74% committed neocon, and Rudy McRomney shared equal slices of the vote, each would have 25%. If Ron Paul absorbed the remaining 26%, then he would be the victor. This is probably why they are so threatened. If the result was absolutely predetermined, they wouldn’t care and would choose to ignore. That is becoming difficult and in fact is what they have foolishly chosen not to do. Rudy tried winning cheap points, but they were with people whose minds were already made up anyway. It has instead brought the attention to Dr. Paul who is the true victor. This makes me think that Rudy really isn’t all that bright - he just knows what the levels and rules of the game is and he has no moral compunctions.

    If he wins New Hampshire, I expect all kinds of rule changes, legal rangling and law changes before the other primaries. The attempt to cram all the primaries together to force alternative voices out could backfire on them as well. If Ron Paul did really well on Super Tuesday, they wouldn’t have an opportunity to change the laws and rules ex-post-facto.

  10. Devious David Says:

    Besides, can you folks imagine how amusing it would be to stick Bushie Republicans with Ron Paul as a candidate? Think about it. They would be in apoplexy, jumping off of tall buildings, doing us all a favor! I wonder what they would seriously do.

  11. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    It’s the insincere ‘sorry’ stuff that’s so disagreeable. Could you be more condescending? Are you yanks that self-impressed, or do you just sound that way?

    I’m a yank living in a Confucianist country. Being condescending here is a social norm based on age and encoded into the grammar of the language. Even the concept of condescension goes unrecognized because it’s the ever-present background noise. I find it disturbing that yanks, steeped in U. S. exceptionalism, are as condescending as slants.

    This and other snide yankie pomp belittlisms like ‘whatever’, ‘no-brainer’ and ‘hello?’ seem to have followed a decade or so behind the rise of political correctness. I’m convinced that both these trends in wordchoice have been restricting political thought, one or the other or both seeping into every nook and cranny (even into Third Party Watch), thus affecting our political choices or lack thereof.

  12. Sean Haugh Says:

    You’re telling me you live in China and you refer to them as “slants”? It must really suck to be you. Then again it must suck to be a worthless racist piece of crap in any day and age.

  13. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Hahaha…. he called Asian people “slants” - that’s priceless.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Besides…im not sure the endorsement of a “group” who has only 1,000 website visits is all that wonderful.

  15. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Oh, I’m not racist. It’s just that I’m politically incorrect in nature and I’ve a fondness for monosyllabics.

    I’ve always thought of the word “suck” as one with only good connotations.

    Actually, East Eurasia can be pretty styly in some ways, and there’re advantages to being a roundeye among slants.

    My daughter’s a slanteye. I’m boosting now, very proud I adopted her. My wife’s yellow but my daughter’s brown. I’m a whity, mostly kraut by bloodline. My son’s a slant/round mix.

    My yank, kanuk, limey and wombat rouster buddies around here tend to humor me by speaking in my terms. Saves on syllables and makes things cozier, I think.

  16. Austin Cassidy Says:


  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Wow indeed.

  18. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    In the Repub debate in Carolina, did you notice, the word “blacks” never came up when discussing the lack of them in the party? Hosts and contenders kept repeating “African-American” to one another so very naturally. So much for Republicans being anti-political correctness.

    And what is “political correctness” but a euphemism for “euphemism”?

    The other favorite Republican Euphemism that night was “War in Iraq” - a really neat way to deny responsibility for it while making it sound like a war of another kind so we can still be in there and still be righteous.

    But the hosts were careful with the euphemism for torture, saying “...what has been called ‘enhanced rendition techniques’...” and contenders said they were for “enhanced rendition techniques” (though none except Mitt Romney repeated the term), but against “torture”. There you have it, the fine Republican line between “enhanced rendition” and “torture”. How do the Democrats talk on that?

    Duncan Hunter outslicked the rest calling it “high pressure techniques”. Makes torture sound like Colonel Sanders.

    Ron Paul said “sounds like newspeak”. I thought it chilling when John x-POW Nam Vet been-tortured McCain treated it as the false distinction that it is and spoke well and strongly against torture to no reaction from the crowd.

    Anyhow, after that debate, Ron Paul’s gotta be an easy choice for Christian Libs.

  19. Crockett Says:

    I don’t consider myself a Libertarian per sey, but I do consider myself, depending on your definition, an evangelical Christian. I WILL be voting for Ron Paul. I am a Southerner and East Tennessean FIRST as well. We are known to be stubbornly independant and individualistic, those Scot-Irish traits are still with us. I don’t trust our government and believe in states rights and state sovereignty.

    I like Ron Paul’s platform. If it is a Libertarian platform I am on board, however I do not agree with Neil Bortz’s idea of Libertarianism, ie. open borders, legalization of some drugs, and a do-as-you-please attitude. I don’t particularly care what people do as long as they are mature enough to accept responsibility for their behavior. I don’t drink, do drugs, or fool around outside of marriage. If you do, be prepared to pay the costs of said behavior and don’t expect me or society to bail you out. My tax dollars shouldn’t be used for your rehab or A.A. meetings.

    Also, remember that what you do affects others AND society as a whole. It is for this reason that I do not partake in such activities. I don’t believe in the “If it feels good, do it” philosophy. I think such an attitude is selfish and people, children, spouses, and society suffer under such a philosophy. Sure, you may have a quote un-quote right to do these things, but that does not mean that what you are doing is healthy or productive or beneficial to society.

    My advice on how to win the support of fellow evangelicals: Forget about the open borders, legalization of drugs business if that is what you are after. Forget about the right to do whatever you feel like if that right is considered immoral and unhealthy. That attitude seems childish and petty to grownups. I dare say, if you are looking for the legalization of weed you are or will be smoking a blunt regardless of the laws…..right? And more power to you. Same with anything else that you want to do. Do it, just don’t go around shouting about it. Christians see these behaviors as detrimental to society and an attempt to unravel the moral fabric of our society…....plain and simple.

    Lastly, you may disagree with the war, as I do, but don’t ever, ever, ever speak ill of the soldiers who are doing the fighting and dying. Southerners appreciate their fighting spirit.

Leave a Reply