Monday, October 01, 2007



I got the headline article at!


By Teno Groppi

The Covenant News ~ October 01, 2007

The main issue that keeps much of the Christian right from supporting Dr. Ron Paul is his position against the war on Iraq. A few are bothered by some of his libertarian slants, but even most Christians recognize we all win with his freedom message. A few more don't understand the concept of Federalism, erroneously thinking that supporting the removal of jurisdiction of things from the federal level to State and local governments equates support of things like drug abuse or prostitution. Still, that doesn't keep as many Christians from supporting Rep. Paul as the war issue does.

Some of the religious right begrudgingly support one of the Republican neo-cons, because of the "lesser evil than Hillary" philosophy (which may not hold up in the case of Rudy Julie-Annie). Many have a lukewarm support (in contradistinction to the enthusiastic support Ron Paul generates) for one of the candidates who may be legitimate quasi-conservatives (Tancredo, Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback). The war is the big wall that keeps all those from flocking to Ron Paul. There's one big blind spot the war supporters exhibit. If they could regain their sight, they would flock to Dr. Paul and he would easily win the GOP nomination. Let me turn a light on and illuminate that blind spot.

All of the Republican candidates placed their hand on a Bible and took an oath before their God and their countrymen to abide by the Constitution. Dr. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wasn't lying when he performed that first official act of office. Every other Republican candidate supported violating the Constitution to attack Iraq. If a candidate will lie while taking his oath of office while holding a Bible, can we trust him for anything after that?

No matter one's position on any particular war, including the current one, war should only be commenced legally. The Constitution they all swore to uphold requires a Congressional declaration of war (something we haven't had since WWII), and Congressional approval of funding. There's a reason for that, in fact several reasons. No one individual, not President Bush, or potential President Paul, should have the power to declare war alone. They are not committing their children to harms way, they are committing everyone else's children to death and dismemberment. No one individual should have the ability to use America's young men (much less women) for his own ends. There needs to be the support of the Congress, based on support of the people they represent.

Dr. Paul is not against war. He served five years in the military himself as a flight surgeon. He is against unjust and unconstitutional war. It was Rep. Paul who drafted legislation to continue to pursue Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, because they had some culpability in the 9-11 attack. It is Dr. Paul who supported using the Constitutional method of letters of marque and reprisal to get them, if necessary. In fact, in the GOP debates, Ron Paul is the ONLY one who keeps bringing up the fact that almost all of the 9-11 terrorists were SAUDIS and wondering why we are attacking Iraq, but not even investigating Saudi Arabia. The other candidates go totally silent when he brings this up. They do not even attempt to defend the Saudis or explain why we have ignored their culpability. They just go on as if Dr. Paul hadn't mentioned anything about the Saudis.

Requiring Congressional approval gives opportunity to debate the war BEFORE thousands start dying. It gives the public opportunity to make their wishes known to their own representatives. If there is support for the war, a Congressman will have nothing to fear by voting to declare war. If there is not support for it - from the people who will be making the sacrifice, the Congressman risks alienating his constituency should he violate their will. He risks his reelection, as he should if he denies those who voted him into office.

War is a horrible thing. It should only be undertaken as a last resort, and with the support of the population. War should only be contemplated when the United States is in direct danger. Constitutionally, war should not be entered to protect other countries, especially ones who are not really our friends. When war is necessary, the goal ought to be to win as fast as possible and get the war over with. The reasons and stakes ought to be crystal clear.

With this war on terror, what is the reason we are attacking Iraq? WMDs that didn't exist? Because Saddam was a bad guy? Because they have oil? Because they had little or no role in 9-11? Because they used to have religious freedom and the right to bear arms and more liberty than most Arabic nations? Because we oppose Islam, so we feel we can attack ANY Islamic nation to root it out? To defend a U.N. resolution that Saddam may have violated? We had no business attacking them if we can't name precisely why we needed to do so.

How do we know if we win this war? Didn't our president already declare "Mission Accomplished" about six years ago? Then why are we still there? Does it take six years for the greatest military power on earth to defeat a handful of insurgents? With the Iraqi people supposedly on our side, shouldn't they have been able to easily help us root out those nasty insurgents? In fact, shouldn't they be able to root out a few rogues by themselves? Maybe there is not as much popular support for us being there as we're led to believe. Should we be involved in a war that has little support in America (70% want our troops back home) or in Iraq?

The fact is, like the other undeclared, illegal wars we've been in (Vietnam, Korea, and other U.N. skirmishes), we don't have a clue what constitutes victory. We wouldn't know we won if we somehow did. When we enter a war for the right reasons, victory is a clear objective. The bad guys surrender and you conquer them. When Iran, under Ayatollah Khomeini, took 50 Americans hostage for 444 days in the 1970's, we had every right to go to war with the intent on annexing Iran as the 51st State of the Union or making a parking lot out of them. That would've had a clear reason and justification for war, a clear victory, and would have provided great incentive to keep any other Muslim nation from pestering America.

How long does it take for us to show Iraq how to have a free society? Who showed us how to do it? Did somebody have to stay and occupy America until we learned how to be free? Either giving them a free society is not what's going on there, or we are wrong to try to push our form of society on somebody else who cannot adapt to it. Imagine trying to enforce freedom at gunpoint. "Be free like us or we'll kill you!" How can we make them free when WE'VE taken away their religious liberty (Islam is now the official State religion, not so under Saddam) and their right to bear arms (which they also had under the oppressive Hussein)?

What's the worry about getting a Congressional declaration? Is someone afraid the public might not have supported having their sons and daughters killed to enforce a UN resolution against Saddam? It's easy to be pro-war when you aren't the one making the sacrifice.

It was Rep. Ron Paul who authored the declaration of war for Iraq to make it a lawful war, with Congressional and citizen support. He got almost no support for it. That shows the Congress and President (and the other GOP candidates) have no problem deciding to kill your children to accomplish their desires. Yet some of you will support the same people who would just as soon kill your own sons to meet their goals.

A really odd thing about this war is that, under the guise of fighting terrorism, American citizens have lost many of their Constitutional protections. We are now subjected to unconstitutional surveillance as if we are guilty before proven innocent. Our phones are tapped, our emails read, our banking records monitored, and such. All without a warrant, despite the fact that it's easy for them to obtain a warrant when one is remotely necessary. If anyone (even you or I) is declared an "enemy combatant" (which can be arbitrarily declared by the president) you lose your right to habeas corpus, charges, a speedy jury trial, evidence, appeal, conviction, representation, and the presumption of innocence. You can be arrested without cause or charges given and imprisoned for an indeterminate amount of time. Those are the tactics of the Soviet Gulag or Red China. How comfortable will you feel with these powers in the hands of President Hillary? Why in the world should we willingly give up our freedoms so those nasty terrorists don't take them from us? Why don't all you war-on-Iraq supporters give me all your money before some criminal steals it? It's the same logic.

You may feel strongly enough that we need to just "kill them Ayrab Islamofascists", that you're glad we're doing it even without a Constitutional declaration. Well, if our side can skirt the Constitution to get our will done, we have no moral ground to find fault with the liberals for doing the same thing. We have no justification to complain about rogue judges making law from the bench, or finding rights to privacy that allow abortion, if we advocate skirting the Constitution ourselves. Those of you who favor the war with Iraq without a declaration, are equally guilty of abortion on demand. You allow the principle to be violated. If you support the current war on Iraq, you should shut up about abortion and sodomy. You've forfeited your right to complain about the liberals by adopting their ungodly, immoral practices yourself.


Teno Groppi, who runs a Creation Science ministry ( has been involved with exposing phony neo-cons for over 20 years, having joined the Constitution party in 1992. He has served as a district representative and county V.P. for the party. He has appeared before the Wisconsin State Congress on behalf of the one man, one woman marriage amendment. Currently he is actively supporting the Ron Paul campaign as a member of the Fox Valley, WI Meet-Up group.