Phillies Expands Staff, Challenges Romney on Bible

Libertarian Party presidential candidate George Phillies has responded to a recent statement made by GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

“When a President takes office, he should place his hand in one place: on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights he is swearing to protect,” Phillies said. “And then, having sworn to protect our Constitution, he should do so.”

His statement comes in response to a speech made Friday by Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, who said, “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.”

“I don’t normally discuss my religious beliefs,” said Phillies. “The President holds a secular role defined by our Constitution.”

Phillies responded, “Romney is totally wrong. Vast numbers of Americans are atheists or agnostics. Other Americans honor essentially every faith known around the globe. I reject the demands of some Americans that our government should persecute other faiths and beliefs, for example by barring abortions or regulating which marriages are valid.

“I do not believe, as one of my Republican opponents does, that a particular religious work is ‘inerrant’ and trumps the Constitution. Such a political belief about the place of the Constitution is unacceptable in a President of the United States, because it means he or she cannot be acting in good faith in taking the oath of office.

“Unlike Mr. Romney and his Republican religious extremist cohorts, I will protect and defend America, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, not proselytize for one faith or another. I will protect freedom for people of all beliefs by swearing on the very document that guarantees those freedoms.”

Phillies has also recently increased the size of his campaign staff and shifted the responsibilities of some of his key staffers. He’s appointed Charles Wilhoit to Campaign Chairman, Jake Porter is now the Chief of Staff, Jeff Wartman is National Mobilization Facilitator for Volunteer Operations and Carolyn Marbry serves as National Mobilization Facilitator for Electronic Operations.

According to Phillies, he’s expanded upon his staff of two in April 2006 to “an army of volunteers and a few part-time paid staff, working every day to build the campaign and bring my message of peace, liberty and prosperity to all Americans.”

“The campaign staff and volunteers continue to prove that we are running a well organized and credible campaign not only for the Libertarian Party nomination, but for the general election, ” Porter expanded on the statement Phillies made.

19 Responses to “Phillies Expands Staff, Challenges Romney on Bible”

  1. Tom Bryant Says:

    This is a great example of why I can’t take Phillies seriously as a candidate. I’m not fan of Mitt Romney by any means, but trying to make what someone swears upon an issue is just ridiculous. I don’t care one bit what someone swears upon, I care about what they’ll do in office. The voters aren’t going to swarm over to Phillies because he’ll use a different document (that will actually just drive away a lot of voters). Phillies is very out of touch on this.

    What’s also interesting is that Phillies seems to think that Romney believes the Bible to be inerrant. Hint: Romney is a Mormon.

  2. Fred C. Says:

    Yeah I thought the inerrant bit was quite the gaff, but it occured to me that maybe Phillies was referring to Huckabee with that statement. If that’s the case, then it’s a clarity screw-up rather than a misinformed screw-up.

  3. matt Says:

    You can be a serious candidate or you can claim that Christians are inherently incapable of governing, but you can’t do both at the same time.

  4. Tom Bryant Says:

    Good thing not too many Christians are voters…d’oh!

  5. mish Says:

    I’m surprised Mr. Phillies didn’t jump of the fact that Mitt Romney has to be lying when he said “that [secular] oath becomes my highest promise to God.” Because, if you know anything about Mormonism, you know the hight oath Mormons promise to God is called the “Law of Consecration” that they swear during their temple ceremony.

    Check out http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/ for documentation.

    Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.

    (Funny photos too.)

  6. Tom Bryant Says:

    The Law of Consecration, where members pool their resources together for the common good, has not been practiced by Mormons for well over a hundred years. You’d know that Romnet certainly doesn’t follow that once you take a look at his bank account.

    Also to note, the Law of Consecration predates Mormon Temples.

    But at least that site got it right that Mormons have teamed up with the Jewish bankers and shape-shifting lizardmen to rule the planet.

  7. Carolyn Marbry Says:

    No, actually, the other Republican to whom he referred was in fact Ron Paul. In no way did he imply or state that “another” (operative word here) of his Republican opponents referred to Romney.

    Ron Paul said yes when the commentator asked if he believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of god in a radio interview on The American View. He went on to say that any law that contradicts God’s law should be ignored.

  8. Carolyn Marbry Says:

    “Another” should be “one” in that post. Mea culpa.

  9. matt Says:

    He went on to say that any law that contradicts God’s law should be ignored.

    Isn’t the conventional wisdom for all of us that any law that contradicts one’s conscience ought to be ignored? Isn’t it by this standard that we condemn the actions of the German SS, even though they were clearly acting legally? Using the language of God’s law is just a Christian way of saying the same thing.

  10. matt Says:

    God’s law, as revealed in Scripture and in the teachings of the Church, informs our consciences both individually and collectively (the latter through something called the moral tradition of Western Civilization). If Phillies wants to chuck all of that in favor of one of it’s products (the Constitution), then bully for him. What he shouldn’t do is castigate everyone whose moral process is different. He should look at the results of thier moral processes and judge them using that criteria.

  11. Carolyn Marbry Says:

    That’s all well and good for individual citizens. It is not, however, acceptable in someone who is sworn to protect and defend the law of the land. That’s the problem here.

    I see no castigation here. I see a candidate who is saying that if you would swear to protect and defend the Constitution, and if your role as President is, as given in that Constitution, a secular role, then putting the Bible ahead of the Constitution is inappropriate in an Executive. He would symbolize that by not choosing any particular faith’s scripture over any other for his oath but would instead swear on the very document that guarantees the freedoms he would protect. Including freedom of religion.

  12. Carolyn Marbry Says:

    The correct way to be rid of laws that violate one’s conscience is not to ignore them but to overturn them or amend them.

  13. matt Says:

    If a candidate’s pledge to protect and defend the constitution is their highest obligation, under what circumstances can the Constitution be changed? If every President had the idea of loyalty that Dr. Phillies has, the Constitution of the 18th century would be etched in stone, slavery and all.

  14. johncjackson Says:

    Phillies > Romney
    Phillies > Paul

  15. matt Says:

    Phillies > Clinton, and that’s all I’m going to say tonight. I’m staying positive.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Ya right. Paul>Sen. Smith>Kubby>Phillies>Romney

  17. Tom Bryant Says:

    I would think less of someone that would uphold the Constitution when it violates their conscience. Christian morals are preferable than blind obedience to the government.

    If Phillies will blindly follow the government and toss out his morals, he won’t be my candidate.

  18. matt Says:

    I think Phillies biggest concern isn’t “blindly following the government”, but rather “always reaching for the anti-Christianity sound-bite”.

  19. Bo Cappella Says:

    God is a myth, just as are Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Tooth Fairy.

    Man has always created gods in his image, not the other way around. That’s why there are 5000+ images of gods in our world. I maintain that “believers” are 1/5000 less an atheist than I, an insignificant percentage. Popularity of a myth does not equal reality.

    The Constitution is real and the basis of our government. I applaud George Phillies’ committment to our Constitution, and wish him all the best.

    That being said, if a libertarian (be it George or Ron Paul) is not our next president, I will be exercising my dual citizenship option and emigrating to Italy permanently. I’ve had enough of the neo-cons, the CFR, and the loss of liberty in “Amerika.”

Leave a Reply