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: ...okay...

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.

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.

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.

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.

I emphasize the words "even if."

Lofton: The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

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: 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.

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: 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!

Lofton: Alright, but do you think that —.

Gilchrist: Should we cut and run? No, absolutely not.

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.

Lofton adds:

(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.”)

“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.”

“Because we're engaged in regime change in order to spread American style democracy, shouldn't we be setting up governments that more closely resemble the best form of government - our own?” he continues. “Of course, since our Executive branch is the one doing the setting up, I can see its aversion, for several reasons, to a congress.”

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.”
[Richard Grenier, “A System Out of Balance?” Washington Times (July 13, 1987). Grenier’s opening line: “I’m tired of the U.S. Constitution. What has it done for me lately?”]

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.

But a draft is bad because after the war nobody would be left to mind the store except the illegal Mexican immigrants?

The draft is the moral equivalent of kidnapping and slavery. Pharaoh wants to build pyramids and needs human cannon-fodder.

Daniel Webster: On Conscription (1814)

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.

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: 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.

Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was a transparent political favor for a friend. Even neo-conservative Bill Kristol called it "cronyism."

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: 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.

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.

I've discussed Germany here and  elsewhere.

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.

Lofton: Sure.

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?

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: 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.

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."

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.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.
The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed., Wash. DC: US Govt Printing Office (1932) XI:342-343

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.

Lofton: God bless you and your family

Gilchrist: You take care, you too.

Lofton: Thank you.