Comparing the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party
Not every Libertarian Party candidate is a perfect representation of the Libertarian Party. Not every Constitution Party candidate is a perfect representation of the Constitution Party. This page is a comparison of two candidates.
The following interview originally appeared at The
American View website:
Exclusive Interview: Jim Gilchrist On Abortion, Iraq War, God And Government, Sodomy, The Draft, “Theocracy”
On the right are the responses of Kevin Craig, Libertarian Party Candidate for Congress, Missouri's 7th District.
Exclusive Interview: Jim Gilchrist On Abortion, Iraq War, God And Government, Sodomy, The Draft, “Theocracy”
By John Lofton, Editor, The American View
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. So, I interviewed him about some other important issues.
JIM GILCHRIST says he’s ‘in lock-step’ with Bush on war in Iraq
Lofton: Where are you on the abortion issue?
|Gilchrist: I’m against abortion.||Craig: Ditto|
Lofton: Any exceptions?
|Gilchrist: 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..||Craig: No exceptions. The reason I'm against abortion is because the pre-born child is a human being, and the intentional killing of a human being is wrong, no matter how helpless or dependent that human being may be. The child is not a "part of the mother"; the child has a unique DNA fingerprint. It is a unique individual. An adult firefighter hurt in the line of duty could go into a coma and suddenly recover and live a "full life" after a few dependent and "lifeless" years. A baby in the womb will live a "full life" in a few years. Neither should be intentionally killed.|
Lofton: Okay, what about in the case of rape?
|Gilchrist: (pause) I
could not say that, yes, abort the fetus. I - it…
Gilchrist: And I’m not saying that —.
Lofton: ...I understand...
Gilchrist: I have all the answers, and everything should be my way. I mean…
Lofton: Well, I’m just trying to find out what you believe. So you would not be for abortion in the case of rape?
Gilchrist: 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.
|Craig: I do not
believe that an individual should be punished for the sins of his or her
father. The baby is as much a victim as the woman who was raped.
Some have argued that in this case the unwanted baby is an "aggressor" or "trespasser" against the rights of the raped woman. Suppose I accidentally walked onto the woman's property. Could she shoot me? No. The loss of life is a greater harm than the temporary trespassing. She should tell me that I'm trespassing and ask me to get off her property.
Communicating in this way with the unborn individual is problematic, obviously, but the same balancing process must be undertaken. Relieving the woman of the harms caused by temporary "trespassing" cannot be greater than the permanent loss of life occasioned by the most extreme remedies. If she can safely remove the unborn individual from her womb into an artificial womb without undue risk to the life of the unborn individual, that's OK. We should always weigh the harms to the woman from "trespassing" against the right to life of the unborn individual.
Lofton: How about incest?
Gilchrist: (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 —.
Lofton: 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.
Gilchrist: You’re correct, John, and that’s pushing me up against the wall, so I have to take the stand for life, not murder.
|Craig: The analysis is
the same as that for abortion, above.
Gilchrist seems to have not thought through his position on abortion very thoroughly, but that's OK because he's a candidate for a federal office, and abortion is not a federal issue, according to the Constitution.
Lofton makes an important point here. We have laws against murder based on the nature of the unborn individual, and because human beings are not to be killed without justification. If it's wrong to abort a baby because you wanted blue eyes, and not brown, it's ultimately because the baby is a human being with a right to life. Temporary "trespassing" does not justify killing an individual human being.
The anguish and psychic suffering caused by rape and incest has been treated quite effectively. Professor Stephen Krason points out that "psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."
This attitude change should begin pre-emptively, by educating adolescent girls in the value of unborn children.
Lofton: Now the exceptions that you mentioned - that was, the so-called life of the mother or health of the mother —.
|Gilchrist: Gilchrist: 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?||Craig: I'm not a physician, but I understand there is never a case in which a baby must be intentionally and deliberately killed in order to protect the life of his or her mother. I say this as someone who passed the California Bar Exam and knows a little about the law, because this is not a medical question as much as it is a legal question. Obviously if a mother is going to die, the child within her will also die, so the mother's life must be protected. If the mother's life is threatened by the position of the baby (e.g., tubal pregnancy), then the doctor must make the best effort of which he is capable of moving the baby to a location (in or outside of the mother) where both mother and baby can survive. Failing to preserve the life of the baby during this difficult process of attempting to save the baby is not murder (legally speaking) and would not be prosecuted as murder if abortion were illegal. If the baby can be safely moved to an incubator or artificial womb, it is never ever the case that the mother's life will still be endangered unless the baby is taken out of the incubator and killed. In this sense it is never ever necessary to intentionally and deliberately kill an unborn baby to save the life of the mother.|
Lofton: Shall I assume that you were against removing of the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo?
|Gilchrist: 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.||Craig: Even
if you accept the idea that someone has the legal right to write a
will that specifies conditions under which they are to be killed, Terri
wrote no such will, and a dangerous precedent is set when a man who wants
to marry another woman can have his ex-wife put to death without clear,
legally sufficient (e.g., in writing) consent on the ex-wife's part.
I emphasize the words "even if."
Lofton: How would you characterize what was done to her?
|Gilchrist 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.||Craig: We live in an age of "tolerance" where people are unwilling to judge others. Polls indicate that many high school graduates today are unwilling to say that Adolph Hitler did anything wrong, because he was "sincere." "Murder" is an unprovoked or unjustified intentional killing. Terri Schiavo was "murdered." Many Germans were involved in the process of murdering millions of people under Hitler. They were all "just doing my job." Similarly, there were many people just doing their job who helped murder Terri Schiavo.|
Lofton: Are you a Christian?
|Gilchrist: Yes.||Craig: Yes.|
Lofton: What kind of Christian?
|Gilchrist: 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.||Craig: I was baptized in the First Presbyterian Church of Branson as an infant, then whisked off to California. I'm at odds with the mainstream Presbyterians over just about everything. I agree with fringe "orthodox" presbyterians on many things, but my disagreements are extensive enough that I was excommunicated, and am currently not a "member" of any church. I sing every Sunday in the choir at First Baptist Church in Forsyth, but I never talk theology with anyone there; only the choir director knows what a "heretic" I am.|
Lofton: What do you think you as President could do to stop abortion?
|Gilchrist: 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
Lofton: The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
|Craig: This is an
interesting question. I can imagine asking Sam Adams or James Madison what
power a President or Congressman might have to stop, say, the killing of
Jews if such were legalized by a state legislature. Then beyond that would
be the case of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down all state laws that banned
the killing of Jews, and what power a Congressman or President might
have to reverse that. Interesting Constitutional questions.
But the first thing that needs to be said, and said often, is that killing human beings is against God's Law. This applies to unborn children in abortion clinics and Iraqi children in Baghdad.
A lot of this task depends on making Libertarians out of more people, where "Libertarian" means "one who does not use force to achieve personal goals," that is, one who is not an "archist."
Lofton: Now, how do you, Jim Gilchrist, view the Roe v. Wade decision?
|Gilchrist: It never
should have happened.
Lofton: Is it law?
Gilchrist: 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.
|Craig: It is as
completely worthy of ignoring as the
Dred Scott Decision. It was a completely unconstitutional decision,
because the federal judiciary does not have constitutional authority to
prohibit states from prohibiting the killing of Jews, or the killing of
Gilchrist doesn't want to appear "judgmental," so he says that if someone wants to put her unborn child to death, we shouldn't try too hard to persuade her not to, because then we would be guilty of "beating her to death" with our ideas about "right to life," etc. Far better to beat the unborn child to death, I guess.
Lofton: What do you think South Dakota should do if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down their anti-abortion law?
|Gilchrist: 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.
Lofton: So South Dakota should just ignore the Supreme Court?
Gilchrist: 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!
|Craig: "The Rule of Law" is a myth as it is currently understood. See here, and especially the link at the bottom of that page to the article, "To HELL with "the Rule of Law.'"|
Lofton: I’m told you that you are not merely a supporter, but an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq.
|Gilchrist: I’m for
democracy. I’m against tyranny - which was the case in Iraq. I am
resistant in one area - I don’t want to send more troops in there. I
want to train more Iraqi troops to take over the fighting..
Lofton: Alright, but do you think that —.
Gilchrist: Should we cut and run? No, absolutely not.
|Craig: I'm against "democracy," as were America's Founding Fathers. I'm also against Islamic theocracy, as were America's Founding Fathers. 200 years ago America's Founding Fathers fought for a nation of "Liberty Under God," the God described in the column on the left in the table below; the U.S. government of today sacrificed lives and hundreds of billions of dollars for a nation under the god described in the column on the right:|
Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135.
[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.
In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court surveyed the founding documents of America and concluded:
Every subsequent American charter was consistent with this objective. President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," issued a proclamation on "the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812," in which he said,
of the draft Iraqi Constitution
The complete text of the draft Iraqi Constitution, as translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the
Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.
Article (90): The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in Sharia (Islamic Law) and law, whose number and manner of selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two-thirds of the parliament members.
Lofton: No, but should we have gone there in the first place? Are you for - were you for Bush’s plan to go in in the first place and bomb Iraq?
|Gilchrist: Originally, I was not. I did not want to get us into this tangle. I’ve met people who live there - in the Mideast. Two who have been in Iran, in Iraq, friends - one, who I served in Viet Nam - one went there after Viet Nam - they both have the same story - it is not the kind of mess you want to start over there. But an economic boycott was not doing any good.||Craig: "Not doing any good" at what? What was the goal of the boycott? It killed over a million people, and Madeleine Albright Secretary of State under Clinton, said on 60 Minutes of these deaths, "we think the price is worth it." What product did we get for this exorbitant price?|
Lofton: Why is it our business to economically boycott Iraq? Why is it any of our business what kind of government there is in Iraq?
apparently was the business from the White House. That White House
apparently determined that because of -.
Lofton: Yeah, I know.
Gilchrist: Saddam Hussein —.
Lofton: Yeah, I know. I was just trying to determine if you were for their rationale for the war. You did say that you were originally against it.
Gilchrist: I was.
Lofton: And now that we’re in it, we have to stay - how long?
Gilchrist: Stay, until the war is turned over, and that I want that war turned over to the Iraqi soldiers yesterday, and let our people be logistical supporters. In other words, they’ll be in the center, we’ll be protectors, it bothers me a great deal to see these young men and women die.
(On the Herb Steck radio talk show on November 30, 2005, Gilchrist said he was “with the President in lock-step on Iraq. I am not a cut-and-run kind of guy….because some handwringers and whiners are upset.”
On this same program, when the host notes there have been substantial cuts in Medicaid because of budget cuts, Gilchrist says such cuts are “wrong,” that Medicaid should be going only to American citizens and not illegal immigrants. He says a little later, regarding companies that employ illegal aliens, that the Border Patrol should “seize their property” and this property “should go to the law enforcement agency that makes the bust to help fund their program.”)
|Craig: Why is it the
government we set up in Iraq -- at a price of millions of lives and
hundreds of billions of dollars -- bears so little resemblance to that
created by America's Founding Fathers? Some kind of parliamentary Islamic
theocracy? A guarantee of "religious freedom" which looks
that found in the constitution of the "former"
Soviet Union? One
writer has astutely observed:
“Have you noticed during the past decade or so that when the U.S.
government changes regimes around the world that it sets up parliaments
rather than congresses? It seems to me that a parliamentary form of
government closely resembles the structure of a corporation, with its
Board of Directors.”
The conservative columnist Richard Grenier is correct: “It has never
occurred to most Americans that their Republic – the first democratic
state on a national scale — adopted a Constitution that has been taken
seriously as an enduring model by nobody. I said, nobody.”
America's Founding Fathers would agree with a recent article in the Cornell Law Review, which admits that we are no longer governed by the Framers' Constitution, but are under an "administrative state," a completely different form of government.
Lofton: Me too. What about the draft? Where are you on the draft?
|Gilchrist: Gilchrist: Against it. I would be against the draft - I think it would create such upheaval. Now, there is a time for the draft. If we’re attacked - of course, we need a draft. In a major conflict, of course we’re going to need a draft. There is a good point about a draft. It did seem to make young men and women grow up into young men. Men grew up a lot faster and mature a lot faster. A peace-time draft, and a draft in general was a good thing for maturing a society. But if it encourages us into foreign nations, I don’t think it’s such a good idea. I think we end up killing off — what’s left over is people marching in the states under the Mexican flag, for example.||
|Craig: A draft is good
because it makes young people "grow up?"
But a draft is bad because after the war nobody would be left to mind the store except the illegal Mexican immigrants?
Lofton: When do you think America should go to war?
|Gilchrist: When there is an outright assault on American territory. The World Trade Center is an example. But I think the war — and I support the war and I would have encouraged going into Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq and if Afghanistan was the source of that attack I think we did the right thing by taking out Al-Qaeda.||Craig: If Smith throws a rock through Jones' window, does Jones have a right to bomb Smith's entire neighborhood "back to the Stone Age?" If 3,000 New Yorkers are murdered, do we have the right to kill 100,000 Arab peasants -- with no guarantee that the actual perpetrators are caught or killed? This isn't "foreign policy" -- it's madness.|
Lofton: Church and state. What’s the proper relationship, in your judgment, between church and state, between God and government?
Lofton: God and government should be separated?
Gilchrist: Yes, but I think we have our moral foundation. The foundation of our country - our Constitution came from our Judeo-Christianity background, and it has a place in moral conduct, but I would draw the line where a Cardinal…
Lofton: No, I’m not talking about the Catholic church. I’m talking about God and government. To what extent does the Scripture talk about the civil government and about how God’s Word ought to govern the civil government?
Gilchrist: Oh, it’s a good thing. That’s how we get our morality — "in God we trust," the 10 Commandments. I’m all for it. In the courtroom - absolutely, and in our schools. There’s nothing wrong with that. It teaches morality - it’s a code of conduct. It’s upsetting about what they did to the judge in Alabama. You know the judge I’m talking about.
Lofton: Roy Moore.
Gilchrist: Yeah, Roy Moore.
|Craig: The Founding
Documents of America indicate that America is under
God, not "separate" from God.
Lofton believes that the Bible commands human beings to form a "civil government." It does not. If we were to govern ourselves according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," with a reverence for the libertarian "precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require that others should do to them," to use the words of Madison, above, and above all to follow two simple commandments, "Thou shalt not steal," and "Thou shalt not kill," we would find ourselves precluded from forming a "civil government," which is based on taxation and vengeance.
Here is my analysis of the federal court decision against Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments.
Lofton: (In a recent address in Tampa, Florida, to the Constitution Party’s National Committee, Gilchrist, criticizing Cardinal Roger Mahoney’s pro-illegal immigrant position which includes giving sanctuary to illegal aliens, said: “My leaning is towards the heritage of this nation more than to a religion. Religion is just a part of the nation. And what Cardinal Mahoney is trying to do is replace [the American flag] and what it represents with something akin to a Mideast theocracy. There’s nothing wrong with religion. We all believe in a God (god?) or savior of some sort. What is wrong is when you use that relation to dominate a nation and I think that is what Cardinal Mahoney is attempting to do by usurping the rule of law.”
|GILCHRIST SAYS he likes Bush Supreme Court nominees John Roberts (shown here) and Sam Alito though neither man is pro-life|
In this same address, Gilchrist said, to applause, that illegal aliens “have no connection or respect for America’s heritage. And I have no respect for them. I hope they put them all away in jail and slam the d—- door shut forever!” He added: “At stake is the very existence of the United States of America as we’ve known it.”)
Lofton: What do you think of Mr. Bush’s Supreme Court appointees?
|Gilchrist: Let’s see
Lofton: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Gilchrist: I like them both, but I did not study them very closely. I don’t think I dislike either of them. I think they were both conservatives. There was one that stood out a little more, and I think it may have been Robert, the one who seemed to have a more moral background. The one who - not that Alito didn’t - it may have been that Roberts was the last one to be appointed, but I remember them both.
appointee was philosophically committed to "Liberty
Under God." Both were even willing to put state power above their
own (professed) God. Both promised the Senate that they would not let
their religious duties to God take precedent over precedents of previous
courts, including Roe v. Wade. Alito's voting record on the 3rd
Circuit was not just pro-abortion, but he usually took the extremist
Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was a transparent political favor for a friend. Even neo-conservative Bill Kristol called it "cronyism."
Lofton: A quick related question. What is the first thing that you think ought to guide a judge?
|Gilchrist: (Pause) The rule of law, along with his conscience. A reasonable man’s conscience — a reasonable woman’s conscience. And I may be playing with words here.||Craig: Judges are to judge in terms of God's Law, not to be technicians of the machinery of the State. They are to be the wise and moral "elders" of society. They take an oath to support the Constitution, not the President that appointed them, and they are not to be the handmaiden of the agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations.|
Lofton: What about God’s Word, Scripture?
|Gilchrist: Yes, but should we become a theocracy? No.||Craig: Our nation's laws were based on Scripture, because America believed that the Scripture was the Word of God, and we were to be a nation "under God," a nation governed by God, which is the literal meaning of the word "Theocracy." In every human government in every nation in every age, the source of law is the "god" of that society. If we will not be a Christian Theocracy, then there are two other theocratic regimes which are seeking to take control of America: Islamic theocrats, and theocrats from the religion of Secular Humanism. In the religion of Secular Humanism, Man is his own god, and as Hegel put it, The State is god walking on the earth. The federal government recently paid half a trillion dollars for "regime change" in Iraq, converting a secular regime under former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein into an Islamic Theocracy. The U.S. has also aided secular humanist theocracies such as the "former" Soviet Union, a totalitarian slave-state.|
Lofton: What about capital punishment. Where are you on that?
|Gilchrist: I’m for it.||Craig: I'm against it. Here's why.|
Lofton: What about Federal aid to Katrina victims?
|Gilchrist: I would prefer that it came from private donations, but with a cost that big, yeah, I would have to support it (Federal aid.) — salvaging that part of the country.||Craig: Q.: Where did "We the People" give the federal government power or authority to give aid to hurricane victims? A.: We didn't. Davy Crockett, "king of the wild frontier," was also a Congressman from Tennessee. He eloquently addressed this issue when asked to vote on a Congressional appropriation of charity. It's unconstitutional. Amazing that a potential nominee of the Constitution Party doesn't know this. "Cost" is a bad reason for amending the Constitution to give the federal government power over charity. Imagine that Martian invaders began their interplanetary attack on earth by "beaming up" every automobile in the world. What would be the cost of replacing all automobiles? Huge. Trillions of dollars. Should the federal government open up auto plants and start making cars for us? Or should the task be left to the Free Market? If you want to buy a car under socialism or communism, expect to wait 10 years to finally get a lemon. Ph.D.'s in government planning offices don't understand this as well as high-school dropout NASCAR fans. Federal involvement in charity is a disaster, from the New Deal to Katrina.|
Lofton: Alright, what about the Federal Government’s role in education? Should it have any role?
|Gilchrist: No. That should be local. Only somewhat of a supervisory role. But to come down and say you can’t have - here we go - Ten Commandments. Next thing they’re going to do is outlaw the American flag in the classroom.||Craig: "somewhat of a supervisory role"? All Federal involvement in education is unconstitutional. This is a critical issue, not just the constitutionality of federal involvement in education, but the moral aspect. Our current congressman has violated his oath of office by approving Bush's expansion of federal control of local education. But this dereliction of duty also leads to destruction of morality. More here.|
Lofton: What about foreign aid?
|Gilchrist: Against it except for an extreme circumstance, or if it were very, very limited. Not the kind of foreign aid we’re doing now.||Craig: "Limited" by what standard? More.|
Lofton: So some kind of foreign aid would be Constitutional?
|Gilchrist: Yeah, yeah, but I’m reluctant with that, John, because - once you start making exceptions it starts getting carried away - I would have to say extremely limited foreign aid - and that could be either none or very little.||Craig: "I swear to support the Constitution . . . with exceptions." This is the best the Constitution Party can come up with?|
Lofton: What about what they call free trade? You for that? Where are you on the tariff question, or the free trade?
|Gilchrist: I’m for getting rid of taxes, if that’s what you’re calling free trade.||Craig: Free Trade:
Private Property is good, therefore Free Trade is good. If you and I wish
to trade some of our property with each other, but the government says we
can't, then we no longer have private property.
Tariffs are taxes on the private property of specific industries not to protect the "general welfare" as the Constitution requires, but to protect special interests that feel threatened by more efficient competing industries. As such, tariffs are unconstitutional. They hurt the majority of consumers because tariffs seek to benefit only a narrow range of special interests.
Lofton: No, no all these international agreements.
|Gilchrist: Against it - I don’t see any benefit to the American middle class - American society in general over this NAFTA and CAFTA - this stuff. I see it as a negative. Long ago when they first started it it sounded like it might be a good idea - but Congress, in its typical wisdom, does not consider the public’s opinion. They just go ahead and pass things.||Craig: NAFTA and CAFTA were precursors to FTAA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which is not just a "trade agreement," but a blueprint for a European Union-style mega-state in the Western Hemisphere, effectively abolishing the U.S.A.|
Lofton: I assume that you agree that private individual’s have a right to keep and bear arms?
|Gilchrist: Yeah.||Craig: The Second Amendment was not designed to protect the rights of hunters and gun collectors. It was designed to protect the rights of armed revolutionaries to defend themselves against their government, overthrowing it if necessary. The United States of America was born out of an armed revolution. Any politician who supports any gun control laws or registration requirements violates his oath of office to support the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.|
Lofton: What about homosexual marriage?
|Gilchrist: NO!, no.||Craig: Marriage was
not invented by the State. It can only be recognized by the State. It was
invented by God, and it has clear parameters which excluded homosexual
unions. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require
a state to recognize homosexual unions as "marriages." For the
State to require a church to recognize a homosexual union as a
"marriage" is as logical as the State requiring churches to
It is impossible for the State, as in instrument of compulsion, to be "neutral" on this issue. It will either impose Christian morality or it will impose homosexual morality. We are now seeing this in Massachusetts.
Lofton: Is homosexuality a sin?
|Gilchrist: I don’t know if it is so much a sin as it is a malady. And in Scripture, yes, it is a sin.||Craig: "In" Scripture it's a sin, but out of Scripture it's a mere "malady?" Is that what he said? What part of life gets to be lived outside of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (which is to say, the Scripture)?|
Lofton: Should it be outlawed? Should sodomy be outlawed?
Hmmm, you notice I’m stalling here. Why am I stalling? Why am I
Lofton: I give up. Why are you stalling?
Gilchrist: Because I am unable to give a yes or no decision. If I have to say yes or no, then I would say, yes, it should be outlawed. It is unnatural. Do I want to go picking fights with homosexuals? No. But would I support any covert attempt to or support any outward attempt to adjust our Constitution to allow homosexual marriage? No, it’s got to remain between one man and one woman, not between one man and several women, not between two men, and not between one women and several men. One on one, one man and one woman.
|Craig: Not all sins should be crimes, according to the Bible, but if any sin should be a crime, homosexuality has as good a claim as any other sin. Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality should be a crime. But they also believed in capital punishment, which I believe is a mistaken application of the Bible. As I explain here, locking a convicted sodomist in prison -- a place where forced sodomy is rampant -- is a self-contradictory policy. Any juror who sits on a sodomy case where the defendant faces prison, should vote to acquit, regardless of the law or the facts. Neither the State nor the Mafia should exist, but as long as they do exist, neither should endorse homosexuality as normal or acceptable. Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to "discriminate" against homosexuals.|
Lofton: Should we get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.?
|Gilchrist: As soon as possible.||Craig: Ditto.|
Lofton: Treaties, finally. Semi-finally, are there treaties you think we ought to have with any country that requires us to go to war if that country was attacked, and if that country was attacked, what might those countries be? We have many of them by the way.
|Gilchrist: I’m thinking of the countries, and I’m thinking of what happened in Viet Nam and what a mess that was because of the SEATO Treaty. I’m thinking of NATO, and apparently that’s how we got involved in Kosovo, although that wasn’t a blood letting event, that was more of a foreign aid event, and some quiet policing. I would hate to see our mother country, England, I hate to call her our mother, where most of our founders came from - I would hate to see England attacked and over run and us just do nothing. I would have to have some exceptions, because I think once you take down England they’re going to come for us. In the case of a threat as in WWII with Germany, I would have to consider some sort of treaties. The absence of that threat, probably not.||Craig: Gilchrist
really doesn't answer Lofton's insightful question.
Kosovo was more blood-bath than "aid," and was an example of barbaric imperialism that would have shocked the Framers of the Constitution, from both a humanitarian and a Constitutional perspective.
If England is attacked, let American anglophiles head over there as mercenaries. For the U.S. federal government to compel participation in a war to support England is immoral.
Lofton: You’ve said that if Sen. John McCain is the GOP Presidential nominee you would think seriously about seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party.
|Gilchrist: Oh, that
would be an easy win. I’d get all the Republicans voting for me.
Lofton: Does that mean that if the Republicans nominate anyone but McCain that you won’t think seriously about the Constitution Party nomination?
Gilchrist: No, no, they better nominate someone who first emphasizes bringing order to the rule of law, ending the war in Iraq, preserving our Social Security system, getting the Federal Government out of education and returning it to local jurisdiction, local supervision. And a number of other things, solving the immigration, actually one of the biggest priorities would be the immigration issue.
Gilchrist: To stop the invasion and then fundamental tax reform which would mean the repeal of the income tax and replace that with tariff and excise taxes and national sales tax. Can you imagine for the rest of your life never having to fuss with an income tax form again?
|Craig: The biggest
question in American electoral politics is whether the Republicans will
become more fascist or more libertarain.
The concept of the "Rule of Law" was discussed above.
Social Security should not be "preserved."
The Constitution Party's immigration policies are fascist and anti-Christian.
Tariffs and excise taxes and a national sales tax are just as immoral as the income tax. Taxation is a violation of the 8th commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."
Lofton: Well, that sounds good, and more than once you’ve embraced the rule of law, and of course everybody in this country babbles all the time how they’re for the rule of law, well, where do you think law comes from, and how do you, Jim Gilchrist, decide if a given law is even law?
question, John, and it’s a stumbling one. I wish I was an attorney —.
Lofton: Oh, my gosh! Jim, Jim, Jim! I can’t let that go! No, don’t do that! How do we know which laws are valid, and which are just made up by man and — what is the origin and the first source of law?
Gilchrist: I would say the Bible. And the Bible wasn’t really set laws, it was rules of conduct. It was more like what would Jesus do, sort of applications and they became laws. They became the foundation of our Constitution, of our Bill of Rights, and in addition to that, there are things that maybe aren’t in the Bible, but just simple things you do, you open the door for somebody walking in behind you in a store, I mean you don’t let it slam in their face.
It’s part religion and part common sense, and to me it’s a combination of things, but the heart of it, the root of it comes from religion, which is justice and fairness and other things. And I’m not an expert in the Bible, so that’s why this is a difficult question for me to answer, but I know we have our foundation on religion, and Christianity, and there’s nothing wrong with that, I think it has worked to our benefit and what I don’t want is people like the ACLU getting their influence into legislation - while they claim they have as much right as you or I, or anyone else to have input. But, I disagree with their premise, and their premise is really communism, which is really ignoring that commandment which says thou shalt not steal, which I feel communists are a bunch of thieves. That’s pretty much what I see - that’s kind of harsh language, but I really feel that way.
Lofton: No, it’s true - sad to say -
Gilchrist: And so are the anarchists that follow them.
|Craig: Gilchrist seems
to be learning a few things from Lofton. He should already have learned a
few things from John Locke, above.
Good manners are in the Bible. "Wal-Mart" may not be in the Bible, but good behavior inside a Wal-Mart comes from an understanding and application of Biblical principles. The Constitution did not require the federal government to remove the Bible from government-run schools. Any society which doesn't know "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," cannot be expected to have much "common sense."
The ACLU was "born to be bad."
Both the ACLU and communists believe that the use of force or threats of violence are useful tools.
Gilchrist's use of the term "anarchists" in this context reveals that he has fallen for "The Biggest Lie in the history of Government."
Lofton: And so is our government in many ways.
|Gilchrist: Oh, yes. It’s organized, it’s legalized, organized crime. And that’s why we have the thing called, irrevocable self-governance, that our founding fathers had been through this back in the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeen hundreds and they knew what it was like to have a government telling you what you were going to do, how you were going to do it, where you are going to live, who are you going to give worship to, etc. All those horrible things that happened under the English rule, and they were going to guarantee that it wasn’t going to happen here as long as we had competent individuals to maintain it. I don’t have all the perfect answers.||Craig: Gilchrist
doesn't believe that everything the State does is
"legalized, organized crime." Only the things he doesn't like.
If he likes the idea of the government taking other people's money, or
enslaving them to perform tasks that Gilchrist wants performed, then he's
for it and it's not a crime.
Although Christian Libertarianism began working to shape Western Civilization immediately after the fall of the Roman Empire, certainly the English, and even America's Founding Fathers, did not have all the implications worked out in 1776. But they would see that throughout the 20th century we regressed in Christian terms and progressed in Imperialist terms -- that is, under the leadership of Republicans and Democrats, the U.S. became less consistent with the Christian libertarianism that had developed since the Roman Empire, and more consistent with the imperialist views of pagan Rome.
Lofton: Let me ask you this on immigration and this is the last one. What is it, you think is the most important thing we ought to know about a person prior to letting him come into our country to become a citizen? In other words, if you had one, two, a couple of things you could say, now look, this is the kind of person, they have to believe “x” — what is the most important thing to admitting a person and allowing them to become a citizen of our country?
|Gilchrist: Loyalty to the United States of America, and I don’t mean bigotry.||Craig: Lofton's question must be analyzed. It's one thing to be "admitted" into the country, and quite another thing to be made a "citizen." Citizenship used to reserved to property owners and church members. I think a good argument can be made to limiting voting to property owners (not that I would make the argument).|
Lofton: You mean to the government?
|Gilchrist: Loyalty to the nation - to our Constitution. Not to the government, to the Constitution, and that’s part of the assimilation process, which the immigration department seems to do a pretty good job with. All the legal immigrants I have met are more passionate in their love for America, it seems, than I am, and I am the founder of the Minuteman Project. They can literally bring you to tears they are so passionate, and it’s so wonderful to be around people who love this country so much more than you could imagine. And that’s a little bit depressing, no I’d say disappointing is that, John, they love America more than our home grown citizens love America, because they came from somewhere else, and now they’re here and they see the dramatic difference.||Craig: With the exception of criminals who fall through the cracks, it is definitely true that naturalized citizens are more loyal than those who are citizens by mere accident of birth. A good argument can be made that a person who is born in the United States should not automatically become a citizen, but should go through the same process naturalized citizens must go through.|
Lofton: Fine. One brief comment I might add. So that’s your number one thing, their loyalty to the Constitution. You know there’s a lot about our country I despise, Jim. I don’t know what America is anymore. I don’t know what this country stands for anymore. We have a President who says what is great about America is that you can worship God, or have no God, everybody can make up his own religion, his own right and wrong, go worship, not worship, I mean what does America stand for anymore? Mush!
|Gilchrist: I agree, John, and like you I feel like an “American without a country.” And you know what? We’re not alone.||Craig: In his General
Orders of May 2, 1778, when the Continental Army was beginning to emerge
from its infamous winter at Valley Forge, Commander-in-Chief George
Washington commended his troops for their courage and patriotism and then
Lofton: And you know what? And now I have to say something that is really controversial. You know that the people that really feel that they’re Americans without a country - I think that they’re Christians. They’re Christians first.
|Gilchrist: Yes, I agree.||Craig: In theory an atheist libertarian could love America, and in light of the egregious departures from the vision of America's Founders, feel like an American without a country. I think the percentage of Christians who are disaffected Americans -- libertarians without a country -- is greater than the percentage of atheists who are Americans without a country.|
Lofton: And that’s why I think the most important thing about an individual is: who is your God? What God do you worship? What authority are you under when no one is looking? The most important thing you can ask someone who wants to come to our country is: “Are you a Christian?”
|Gilchrist: So your
[number one thing] would be “Are you a Christian?” Mine would be: “Do
you support our Constitution?”
Lofton: But, there’s a problem there. When they take an oath to do that, as new citizens, who are they swearing to, Jim, if they’re not Christians who believe in the true God?
Gilchrist: Then they’re swearing to the power of government. Is that what you are saying?
Lofton: No, I’m just saying - well, yes, in a way, implicitly, they are doing that. But I would say that an oath taken by someone who doesn’t believe in God is just a joke.
Gilchrist: Oh, yeah.
|Craig: On the day after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, every state in the union required politicians, jurors and citizens to be Christians. Nobody could take an oath who didn't believe in God. During the 1800's some of these laws were modified to include Jews, but it was not because the states were required to do this by the U.S. Constitution. It was because of a sociological phenomenon we might called "watering down." This process took 170 years before the U.S. Supreme Court "discovered" that requiring people to believe in God before taking an oath was "unconstitutional."|
Lofton: But, the problem there is that they took an oath to the law of the Constitution, and they swear that they are going to be loyal if they don’t believe in the true God, who are they swearing to? What good is the oath, or word of the unbeliever? Or, to put it more succinctly: Never believe an unbeliever.
|Gilchrist: Hmmmm.||Craig: This was the law under the Constitution for nearly 200 years.|
Lofton: We can’t let people in this country willy-nilly, regardless of their religion and pretend that someone’s religion doesn’t matter when this is what matters most!
|Gilchrist: Gilchrist: And how would we possibly restrict people, let’s say Muslims or Jews, from coming here? How would we possibly do that?||Craig: Again, the distinction has to be made between allowing a non-Christian to be here, vs. allowing a non-Christian to be a citizen. These are two different legal issues.|
Lofton: Well, first of all you would have to have people who actually believe what I just said, and then the mechanics of it would be worked out the way you would work out anything. I mean if you looked at the list of questions potential citizens are asked — and there’s a whole list of them — none have anything to do with what God do you worship, what authority are you under when no one’s looking? Potential citizens are, however, asked a whole bunch of other things such as: How old are you? You have to pledge to fight — , blah, blah, blah. And that last one bothers me, just a blanket pledge to fight for the country, regardless of what kind of war we’re in.
|Gilchrist: I must go. I have another appointment.||Craig: No politician wants to answer these questions.|
Lofton: Thank you. You’ve been more than generous with your time.
Lofton: God bless you and your family
Gilchrist: You take care, you too.
Lofton: Thank you.
|Craig: It took 200 years to transform America from a Christian nation into an atheistic nation. It will take at least 25 years to reverse this, though it is conceivable, given miraculous divine intervention, that it could happen sooner.|