Constitution Party/Potential Candidate/JIM GILCHRIST


A recent article on the “WorldNetDaily” Web site reported that “Minuteman Project” founder Jim Gilchrist might be interested in running for President as the Constitution Party’s nominee. This article quotes CP Chairman Jim Clymer as being excited about the possibility of such a Gilchrist candidacy. Gilchrist’s views on immigration are well-known. John Lofton interviewed him about some other important issues.

Originally found here:

Exclusive Interview: Jim Gilchrist On Abortion, Iraq War, God And Government, Sodomy, The Draft, “Theocracy”


ABORTION

JIM GILCHRIST says he’s ‘in lock-step’ with Bush on war in Iraq

Q: Where are you on the abortion issue?

A: I’m against abortion.

Q: Any exceptions?

A: I assume there would be - I would assume there are certain situations where there are - where abortion is necessary for life saving, something like that. But I am essentially not pro-abortion. It goes against my moral standings.

Q: Okay, what about in the case of rape?

A: (pause) I could not say that, yes, abort the fetus. I - it…

Q: Okay.

A: And I’m not saying that —.

Q: I understand.

A: I have all the answers, and everything should be my way. I mean…

Q: Well, I’m just trying to find out what you believe. So you would not be for abortion in the case of rape?

A: No, it would have to be an extreme situation and I don’t know what that situation would be, other than a life saving situation.

Q: How about incest?

A: (Sighs, pauses) I cannot give you a definitive answer on that. I would have to say that I am against abortion — all forms of abortion. I will take that stand, but it doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t give into something like incest. It’s that — I — have to study it. I have to talk to people. I would have to talk to people on both sides of this issue because that is a very, very sensitive issue. An extreme —.

Q: But, it seems to me that the status of the unborn baby, whether the unborn baby is there as a result of rape or incest, or just a married couple, is totally unchanged. That under no circumstances, if you’re against the killing of the unborn baby for married couples, then it’s the humanity and status of the child that does not change in rape or incest.

A: You’re correct, John, and that’s pushing me up against the wall, so I have to take the stand for life, not murder.

Q: Now the exceptions that you mentioned - that was, the so-called life of the mother or health of the mother —.

A: Yes, my understanding is that some women die during pregnancy and there’s a choice sometimes that a physician might have to make. I’m not a physician, so I don’t know when that circumstance would arise, but do I save this child, and let the mother die, or do I save the mother and let the child die? I don’t know how that decision is made. Does the doctor make it? Does the mother make it? Is the doctor required by law to save the mother?

TERRI SCHIAVO

Q: Shall I assume that you were against removing of the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo?

A: Yes. I felt that she deserved to live. I have, I have - yeah, that was uncalled for. I was bothered by that. I would have said keep the feeding tube in, and keep her living.

Q: How would you characterize what was done to her?

A: It could be as severe as saying she was murdered. I’m a little cautious in calling people murderers. I think that the people involved with that decision perhaps didn’t think didn’t have a - were perhaps a little bit delusional, including the judge who ruled that.

Q: Are you a Christian?

A: Yes.

Q: What kind of Christian?

A: I’m a baptized Catholic, currently at odds with the Catholic Church over the immigration issue. I feel like they’ve taken it into their own hands. I worship at a non-denominational church - Saddleback Community Church under Rick Warren.

Q: What do you think you as President could do to stop abortion?

A: Perhaps an Executive Order. Influence. Speaking in public. Making it somewhat of a priority - it’s not a priority. And I think the President has the power to do this. The President has such tremendous influence over setting national standards, morality and in custom and in attitude and conduct. And I would bet though that Congress would challenge a President who made that declaration and maybe then fight. Well, let’s fight about it. Let’s fight about it on the floor of the House. I’m going to bring the issue forward. There will be an Executive Order. There will be none under any circumstances. Now you, Congress, you fight it out for the next five years and try to overturn it and if you don’t like it un-elect me. In other words, I’m going to do this out of conscience. I’m gonna take the side of life, rather than taking the side of murder. And again, those are hard words. Abortionists, man, they flip out when you call them murderers, but they are.

Q: The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Now, how do you, Jim Gilchrist, view the Roe v. Wade decision?

A: It never should have happened.

Q: Is it law?

A: It’s a court precedent, and I don’t look at it as law, other than it’s a benchmark that the pro-abortionists use to say, hey, this is okay, I’m not doing anything wrong. Mind your own business and go away. Well, lady, this is like the seventh abortion you’ve had in the last four years! Yea, but it’s my body and Roe v. Wade says it’s legal so leave me alone. You’re kind of dealing with a mental illness mentality, and a very selfish mentality and a very irresponsible mentality and you can’t beat ‘em to death on it. It doesn’t mean that you have to tolerate them, but we do anyway, but the best way is to try to convince them and put some guilt into their conscience so maybe they can look at the issue in a different way. Roe v. Wade is nothing but a court decision. To me it’s not rule of law, but a judge looks at it another way and I guess considers it rule of law.

Q: What do you think South Dakota should do if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down their anti-abortion law?

A: Now, my conscience says that they should ignore it, but, here I am preaching the rule of law, then if we have immigration laws, then what business does the Catholic Church have, and other religious orders have in telling their parishioners to violate that law? Where do I go here? This is, but then I could split it this way - we’re talking about life rather than someone trespassing - over our international borders. Now I think that with that argument, I could make a valid argument, that is saying this law should not be respected because what law would order a society to kill people? Yeah, I would feel comfortable with that. I would feel comfortable with that, so I would say, yeah, just ignore the law.

Q: So South Dakota should just ignore the Supreme Court?

A: Yes, I would tell them to defy any legislation or any ruling against their decision (anti-abortion law) because the argument is - look, we’re ruling for life. We’re talking about human life here. We’re not talking about an immigration issue, or burglary issue. We’re talking about human life here, and with that argument I bet you could win it!