Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why I am running for Congress.
This is "the ten minute version." See also
This website contains nearly 200 separate web pages with informative links on the
important issues of our day. I have listed these issues on the right side of this
page. Obviously I don't feel I can really explain my reasons for running in just ten
minutes. Being an American is a lifelong responsibility, requiring a lifelong
willingness to study the issues and be diligent in defense of "Liberty
under God." I hope you take time to study the issues -- even after the 2004
election is over.
I am running for Congress because I believe in "Liberty
under God." "Liberty under God"
is the philosophy that made America the most prosperous and most admired nation on
earth.
By "Liberty"
I mean "binding the government down by the chains of the Constitution" (Jefferson)
and protecting our God-given rights; I mean using persuasion rather than government
force if my neighbor smokes too much or engages in a tasteless lifestyle.
When the
Framers of the Constitution spoke of America as being a nation "Under
God" they meant a nation that obeys moral absolutes such as found in
the Ten Commandments: "the Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God." These are the values that keep our streets safe, make
high SAT scores possible, fuel a vibrant economy, and will make America once again
the most admired nation on earth.
I am running for Congress because I see "Liberty
under God" being attacked in our day by socialism and
government-imposed secularism.
As the Libertarian candidate I believe I most closely
represent the fundamental values of the Constitution:
• Liberty, but not license;
• Freedom AND personal
responsibility.
Too many Americans -- and most Congressmen -- have
forgotten the values for which the Founding Fathers risked their lives and which
made America great. Unconstitutional government destroys our liberties and
encourages irresponsibility; it stifles creativity and productivity and breeds
slavish dependence.
I am running for Congress because no other candidate is
committed to the principle of "Liberty under God"
above partisan politics:
- Both the Republican incumbent and the Democratic challenger sacrifice liberty
to the myths of socialism, voting for
bigger government and more taxes, and against Free Enterprise and
personal responsibility. The incumbent is well-known for "bringing home the
bacon," that is, rewarding those who voted for him with money taken from
other taxpayers.
- Neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate are willing to champion
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God" above today's trends of relativism and secularism.
America needs an aggressive defender of "Liberty
under God" in Congress, someone who will stand on principle against socialism
and government-imposed secularism.
The Oath of Office
Incredibly, in our day socialism and government-imposed secularism have gained
such power that even if I win the election, powerful forces may well initiate legal
challenges to keep me from taking the oath of office on Inauguration Day, 2003.
The same court which declared the
Pledge of Allegiance to be "unconstitutional" told me I
could not have a license to practice law even though I passed the California Bar
Exam. Why? Because I believe America must return to the values of our Founding
Fathers and become a nation of "Liberty Under God."
I believe my case is just the tip of the iceberg; a
symptom of a national epidemic.
I believe any government that will not be "under
God" is a government that thinks it is
god.
My allegiance to God is greater than my allegiance to
the government, and courts across this nation have ruled that "extremists"
with this "attitude" cannot be lawyers, teachers, or even American
citizens.
America is no longer a "city upon a hill," a
beacon of liberty and morality to the world.
Join me, please, in a short history lesson, surveying
America's past and our deplorable present condition.
In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was
a Christian nation (Holy Trinity Church v.
U.S.). The Holy Trinity Church in New York was told by federal immigration
authorities that it could not hire the Pastor of its choice. Their choice of Pastor
was from Britain, and there was a law against "cheap imported labor." The
Supreme Court rebuked the immigration authorities, saying that America was a
Christian nation, and our laws should never be interpreted in a manner that would
exclude a Christian from America in this way.
But in 1931 the Court changed its mind (U.S.
v. Macintosh). In this case a pastor from Canada, already teaching at the
Yale Divinity School, wanted to become an American citizen. Immigration authorities
denied his petition on the grounds that he had some possible objections to
government policies.
Now let's stop and think for a moment. Do you know
anyone who does not have some objections to at least one
government policy? If Janet Reno ordered you to drive a tank into the side of a home
filled with women and children -- solely on the grounds that the people inside had
unconventional religious beliefs -- would you obey the government? Rev. Macintosh
said he would disobey any government law which he believed to be contrary to God's
Law, just as the Apostles, who wrote much of the New Testament from jail cells, said
"we
must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).
The Macintosh Court said your loyalty to the
State must be greater than your loyalty to God. The Court said your allegiance to
the government must be "unconditional."
Unbelievable. The Court tipped its hat to the Holy
Trinity decision, and then booted it out the door.
Then in 1945 the Supreme Court told a
law student named Clyde Summers, who had passed the Bar Exam and was qualified
to receive his license to practice law, that he could not be allowed to take the
required oath to "support the Constitution" because his allegiance to God
was higher than his allegiance to the State.
America was no longer a nation "under God."
After I passed the Bar Exam, a federal district Court
told me that the Supreme Court's decision against Summers
barred me from the practice of law as well.
If I am elected, I will argue passionately that I should
be permitted to take the oath required of Congressmen in the U.S. Constitution
(Article VI). In fact, I'm campaigning on the claim that the incumbent has not kept
his oath of office, and his Democratic challenger has no intention of doing so.
Of course there is no doubt that both candidates are men
of integrity who love their country. But I'll bet neither were aware that the
Supreme Court has demanded "unconditional allegiance" to the State, and
has declared that Christians who place God above government could not become
attorneys. And I'll bet neither are aware of what the Court and our Founding Fathers
have said the oath of office requires.
"Peaceful Settlement of Disputes"
I'm sure both the Republican and the Democrat will agree with me that the oath to
"support the Constitution" requires a Congressman to oppose violent
revolution. The Court in Law
Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401
U.S. 154 (1971), declared that the "support oath" assured the
government that the applicant is "dedicated to the peaceful and reasoned
settlement of disputes between men, and between a man and his government." But
only the Libertarian Party makes this a requirement of everyone who joins the party.
Members must promise:
I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of
achieving political or social goals.
Democrats believe in the initiation of force to achieve
their political and social goals. Not content with persuasion, they resort to threats
of unspeakable violence against those who do not want to give their family's
money to Democratic welfare programs. Republicans also resort to threats of force
against those who do not want their family's money to be used to reward defense
contractors that contribute to Republican Party causes. Only Libertarians are
committed in principle to using only persuasion to foster personal responsibility.
"Affirmation of 'Organic Law'"
Even many Libertarians, however, will be surprised to learn that the Supreme
Court has declared that the oath to "support the Constitution" also
includes "an affirmation of 'organic
law'." Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 685 (1972).
What is "organic
law?"
It is the fundamental law of our nation. Go
to a library and ask for a copy of the United State Code, and the first volume will
have four of these charters of America's "organic
law": The Declaration of
Independence, The Articles
of Confederation, the Constitution
of 1789, and the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787.
When territories wanted to join the Union as
states, Congress would pass an "enabling act" which usually required the
state constitution to be consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the
Northwest Ordinance.
Any politician who takes an oath to
"support the Constitution" is also taking an oath to support the principles
of the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance, according to the
Supreme Court.
In particular, one line from Article III of
the Northwest Ordinance was quoted verbatim in the state constitutions of many states
up until 1875 (Nebraska) and thus became part of the "organic law" of many
states. This part of America's Organic Law makes a stunning declaration about the
purpose of education. In his concurring opinion in Engel
v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, the case which
removed voluntary prayer from government schools, Justice Douglas admitted:
- Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. The
Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in
Article III that
- Religion, morality, and knowledge being
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools
and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Those who try to keep religion and morality separated from
education run contrary to the most fundamental values of America. Not a single person
who signed the Constitution believed that education could or should be
"secular" and that government schools should not teach "religion,
morality and knowledge." Nor should we.
Because education is intensely personal and inescapably
value-laden, government coercion is inappropriate. Atheists should not be taxed to
provide Christian education, and Christians should not be taxed to provide education
which advances the religion
of Secular Humanism.
Liberty is the answer. Freedom of choice will
restore America's values. "The separation of
school and state" is the most powerful way to restore "Liberty
under God."
Liberty and choice in education would have a dramatic
effect on our schools and our entire nation. Most Americans intuitively believe in the
conclusions of our Founding Fathers, that morality is an essential part of a child's
education. If most parents had a choice, they would send their children to schools
which had a place for "religion, morality and knowledge," instead of
government-run schools which ignore all three.
We need a Free Market in education.
Neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate will
be a passionate champion of "the separation
of school and state." Neither will push for education which reflects the
values that made America the most admired nation on earth. Neither candidate will take
the most important step in ensuring good government and American prosperity in the
future.
Whenever a social system appears to fail -- charity,
business, protection of the environment -- politicians call for more government power,
and more threats of force against those who resist. In
every case the apparent failure of private charity, businesses, or protection of the
community could have been avoided if schools had produced a generation of students
filled with "religion, morality and knowledge," the values that made America
great before politicians become omnipresent. True religion is the protection and care
of the weak (James 1:27); good character prevents cooked corporate books;
future-oriented Americans care for the environment.
Greed, selfishness, short-sightedness, exploitation, and
ignorance cannot be solved by Congress. They can only be solved by "Liberty
under God."
Promoting "religion, morality and
knowledge" is best achieved by getting politicians out of the way.
America became a great nation without a
god-like federal government. America is still a great nation in spite of a federal
government that thinks it is god.
I am running for Congress to get Washington
out of the way of America's greatness.
Objections:
Why Some People Will Not Vote for Kevin Craig
You may have heard some criticisms of my positions. Here are the two most
important:
- "Kevin Craig is an anarchist."
- "Kevin Craig wants to impose a theocracy."
Am I an anarchist? Obviously not, since "everybody knows" that an
anarchist is a bomb-throwing assassin who wants to destroy all order and harmony, and
I said above that I am committed to "the peaceful
resolution of disputes between man and his government." My objection to most
government policies is that they destroy the order of the Free Market
and create chaos which benefits only a few.
But there is a sense in which Kevin Craig is
an anarchist. Jesus
said to His disciples:
The kings of the nations love to be "archists"
(transliteration of the Greek word), but it shall not
be so among you. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a servant who
will give his life to rescue His people.
In this Christian context, one who does not want to be an
"archist" ("anarchist") is one who wants to be of service to
others. I hope I am guilty of that. I have spent most of my adult life trying to of
service to my neighbors and my country.
I am a radical capitalist. I believe socialism
never works better than Free Enterprise. It violates basic economic law.
Further, I believe socialism
is immoral; it violates "the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God." Capitalists earn their money;
socialism is theft. Capitalism is voluntary;
socialism is compulsory. I am very suspicious of politicians and "government."
Impose a Theocracy?
"Theocracy" comes from two Greek words, theos, which means
"God," and kratein, which means "rule." The word has
nothing to do with priests or churches. It's a smoke-screen put up by people who don't
want to be bound by the Declaration of Independence and "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Theocracy means a nation "under
God." In the purest sense of the word, America was designed to be a
decentralized Theocracy, with "Liberty Under God," and "a wall of
separation" between the State and the various churches.
I find it ironic that someone who is accused of being an "anarchist"
because he so consistently opposes government imposition of values, can also be
accused of wanting to "impose" a Theocracy. I am the most consistent,
principled opponent of government-imposed anything among all the
candidates.
The reason why these two completely contradictory charges can be made and
entertained is because our government-run schools have left most Americans ignorant of
the most fundamental principles of our society. Your vote for Kevin Craig says "I
want to change all that."
Why Vote for a "Loser?"
The incumbent won the last election with nearly 80% of the vote - a huge landslide.
He has over one-million dollars in his campaign war chest. The overwhelming majority
of voters in his district have no interest or ability to finish reading as far as you
have read. The incumbent will win re-election, and he will claim a "mandate"
to continue the same semi-socialist, semi-secularist policies that he has voted for
during the past 24 years.
Your vote for Kevin Craig sends the clearest possible message to the incumbent that
you want things to change. Your vote for Kevin Craig tells the incumbent to honor the
principle of "Liberty Under God."
|