Even if you decide not to change your vote, I guarantee this letter will be far more thought-provoking, educational, and productive than tonight’s edition of “American Idol.” And voting for principle instead of for a party would be what America’s Founding Fathers would recommend.
This letter is about who Americans in Southwest Missouri should vote for in 2006 and 2008. If you’re like most voters, you voted Republican in the last election. I’d like to prove to you that America’s Founding Fathers would not vote to re-elect our incumbent Congressman.
Imagine that you’ve been called for jury duty, and as the case gets underway, you’re shocked to find the accused is a friend of yours. You know that they’ve got the wrong guy; your friend cannot be guilty of the crimes charged. But as the prosecution mounts the case, you’re shocked by the evidence. You begin to have doubts. Maybe you didn’t know your friend as well as you thought you did. Maybe he fooled you all these years. When it comes time for your friend’s defense attorney to present his case, his only argument is that all the evidence was “illegally seized,” and should be ruled “inadmissible” by the judge, thus letting an apparently guilty defendant walk. No other defense is offered. The judge denies the motion, and the jury begins deliberating. You don’t really want your friend sent to prison, but you’re now convinced he’s guilty. To your surprise, all 11 of the other jurors want to find your friend “not guilty.” By a landslide vote, your friend is re-elected to a term of freedom.
I want to bring a case against someone you may consider your friend: your incumbent Congressman. He won re-election by a landslide vote in 2004. He’s loved and respected by tens of thousands of people. And you’ll think it’s ridiculous that someone is bringing charges against him. But I trust that you’ll be an objective juror, and I guarantee you’ll be surprised at the evidence.
First let me tell you a little about the candidate I’m supporting for Congress. His name is Kevin Craig.
· He moved from California to the Branson area 3 years ago. He has been singing in the choir at First Baptist Church of Forsyth ever since.
· He passed the California Bar Exam (said by many to be the toughest Bar Exam in the world)
· He was not granted a license to practice law because he believes America must be a nation “under God.” I was shocked to hear this. Please let me tell the story.
You may recall a few years ago when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that children in government-run schools should not be permitted to say the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Kevin Craig’s case came before that court, and the situation in California –– and the rest of the nation –– is much worse than I had ever thought. It turns out that Christians cannot become attorneys, or even become American citizens. You undoubtedly know some Christian attorneys, and maybe some Christians who have become naturalized American citizens. They did not tell any knowledgeable government authority that they were Christians. Kevin Craig did.
Let me try to sum up the last 100 years of American legal history –– history I was never told in government schools––in a couple of paragraphs.
In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian nation. The case involved the Holy Trinity Church in New York, which wanted to hire a pastor from Britain. A Federal immigration authority invoked a statute banning the importation of foreign labor to prohibit the church from hiring their pastor. The U.S. Supreme Court not only reversed the decision of the immigration official, but went on to spend more than half of its unanimous opinion summarizing the Christian history of America. I believe Kevin Craig was the first person to make the entire opinion available (without charge) on the Internet:
http://LibertyUnderGod.com/HolyTrinity
This case was overruled in the 20th century in a case where a clergyman from Canada wanted to teach at the Yale Divinity School. (OK, so he was a liberal. His position was not fundamentally different from yours or mine: he said in effect, if Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno ordered him to kill all the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, because they were a bunch of “fundamentalists” who opposed gun control, he would refuse to do so in order to obey God’s Higher Law, which says “Thou shalt not kill.”) He cited the Holy Trinity case in his defense. The Supreme Court nixed the Holy Trinity precedent and said everyone’s allegiance to the federal government must be “unqualified.” That means you can’t say “I support the government, unless it commands me to sin.” You have to say, “I support the government, even if it commands me to disobey God.” Your allegiance to the government must be “unqualified,” according to the “new and improved” Supreme Court.
A few years later, this decision was applied by the U.S. Supreme Court to the case of a Christian in Illinois who had passed the Illinois Bar Exam and wanted to practice law. He said his allegiance to God was greater than his allegiance to the government, and he was denied his law license.
This is the kind of thinking that led to the decision to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
A Federal District Court in Los Angeles said this case prevented Kevin Craig from becoming an attorney, and its decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kevin’s final brief before the Ninth Circuit was written by three well-known professors of Constitutional Law and a former California State Supreme Court Justice.
You can read more about his case here:
http://i.am/not-a-lawyer
I believe America’s Founding Fathers would be shocked at this situation.
The secular wolves are now in charge of the hen house.
Jesus says we are to be “wise as serpents.”
I would like you to help me educate as many Christians as we can.
Kevin Craig is running for U.S. Congress on a simple platform: “Liberty Under God.”
He admits he cannot possibly get elected – at least not in this year’s election. The incumbent is the third most powerful Republican in Congress. He has over a million dollars in his campaign war chest.
But the incumbent cannot become a Deacon in any Southern Baptist church.
Nor was the incumbent able to become the Majority Leader in Congress, because his ties to corruption (Jack Abramoff, tobacco companies, etc.) are too thick.
And I’m convinced that America’s Founding Fathers would not vote for our incumbent Congressman. In fact, I’m confident they would actively oppose his re-election. If you’re willing to read this letter, I think you’ll agree with me.
I’d like to explain why, and then describe a plan that will defend the American ideal of “Liberty Under God ”without much risk on your part. Certainly not as much as America’s Founding Fathers risked.
Let me remind you again that America’s Founding Fathers risked “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” in defense of “Liberty Under God.” They lost sons and daughters, businesses, and estates. I’ll I’m asking for is a few minutes of focus and then, if you agree with me, sending a few emails to your friends, and then “wasting your vote” in November.
Close your eyes and imagine that Bill Gates has used his billions to fund the invention of a time machine, and with it he brings all of America’s Founding Fathers into the 21st century. These are the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, spent a dangerous winter at Valley Forge, wrote the Constitution, added the Bill of Rights, and participated in the ratifying conventions of the several states. And now they’re here to observe our political system and offer their advice to you as a voter.
Imagine also that Melinda Gates (Bill’s wife) has seen to it that America’s Founding Mothers are also brought into the 21st century: Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, Betsy Ross; Americans who couldn’t vote, but strongly wielded the power of influence and sacrificed to lay the solid foundations of a new nation.
All of them were willing to risk a great deal to give birth to a new nation.
|
Always vote for principle, |
Who
would they vote for in 2006?
Would you be willing to join them?
Can you risk the next few minutes to think carefully and prayerfully about those questions? Is your vote important enough to finish reading this letter?
America’s Founders were “fanatics.” They were “extremists.” They were willing to abolish the government and create a new nation. In 1776 most Americans were not ready to follow Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. Most Americans were “comfortable” and didn’t want to “rock the boat.”
What motivated the Founders to take such risks?
Scholars estimate that Britain was attempting to levy taxes on the colonies at a rate of between 3 and 5%. The tax on tea was about 2%, and in Boston they threw it into the harbor. We now pay ten times more than our Founders rebelled against.
And what did the British King George III plan to do with the tax revenue?
|
· Fund Abortions? |
No. |
|
· Remove the Bible from public schools? |
Wouldn’t dream of it. |
|
· Force the state of Alabama to remove a public display of the Ten Commandments? |
Never entered his royal mind. |
|
· Help atheistic communists in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics build the largest truck factory in the world, so that armored personnel carriers could be used to invade Afghanistan? |
Unthinkable! |
|
· Give military aid to Muslim fanatics so that they could fight against these “Western Imperialists?” |
A good Christian nation?? |
|
· Give military aid to Saddam Hussein so that he could win his war against Iran? |
Are you insane? |
Incredibly, our current government has done all these things, and there is no evidence that our incumbent Congressman will advocate the fundamental changes that our Founding Fathers would advocate if they were here today. He hasn’t yet. He’s had five terms. He’s the powerful Majority Whip. He knows how to get things done.
In 1776, the British “tyranny” denounced in the Declaration of Independence would never have dreamed of doing the things our own federal government has been doing for the last five congressional terms, to say nothing about the last 40 years. King George III and the British Parliament considered themselves to be good Christians, and when the War for Independence was won in 1783, Britain signed a peace treaty imposed on them by the United States of America which began:
In the
name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most
serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of
Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick
and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.,
and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and
differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and
friendship which they mutually wish to restore, etc.
Would you vote for a government that governed “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity?” I know I would. And yet America’s founders worked to abolish such a government even though it was only one-tenth as unChristian as our current government.
Most Americans are almost completely out of touch with the values of America’s Founding Fathers. Most Americans today accept the myth of “the separation of church and state,” and can’t even begin to think about a nation that governs “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” And yet most Americans are okay with spending over $200 Billion to set up an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Probably not a single person who signed the Constitution would approve of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Find out why:
www.KevinCraig.US/iraq
Contrary to what you may have heard on the Internet or from your public school civics class, not a single deist or atheist signed the Constitution. They were Christians, and they opposed “democracy” –– the idea that “the voice of the people is the voice of God” (vox populi, vox dei) –– and would most assuredly have opposed both a secular (atheistic) democracy, or an Islamic theocracy “democratically” created.
www.KevinCraig.US/democracy
After the Constitution was signed, on the day Congress approved the final wording of the First Amendment, the entire Congress asked George Washington to declare a Day of Thanksgiving and Fasting in gratitude to God for the new Constitution. On October 3, 1789, Washington made this official proclamation:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
It was a different world back then. America’s Founders were obviously “religious nuts.” And if these words were read in front of a public school classroom today, and they were “endorsed” by the teacher, who recommended that the students believe what America’s Founding Fathers believed, the ACLU would convince a federal judge to order the school to stop doing the things America’s Founding Fathers regularly did, and to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to the ACLU.
America’s Founding Fathers would vote for a candidate who believes America should be a nation “under God,” who believes in “freedom OF religion,” not government-imposed “freedom FROM religion.”
Any government that claims to be “secular” and will not acknowledge itself to be “under God” is a government that believes it IS God. Any nation that allows its government to demand a tithe larger than God Himself requires is a nation of slaves.
Kevin Craig believes America is obligated to be “under God.”
Our current Congressman would say he supports America being “under God.” Our current Congressman gives very fine speeches. But his actual voting record would shock America’s Christian Founders.
Please let me explain this charge in three critical areas.
Education
Shocked. Appalled. Angered.
These are words that would describe the reaction of America’s Founding Fathers if they could experience the moral climate of an average 21st century government-run “public” school. And it would express their dismay at seeing the federal government unconstitutionally usurp the power of local communities to improve our schools.
We can see the tip of a huge iceberg in a letter to the Los Angeles Times written by a school teacher. Mrs. Jones told the editors that she had taught in the public school system and enjoyed a successful and rewarding career. It was her habit to enter the classroom each day and address her students by saying, “Good morning, class.” The students would respond, “Good morning, Mrs. Jones.” Then they would get on with the day’s tasks. This happened for many years until she finally retired.
Several years later, Mrs. Jones decided that it was time to go back to teaching. She was, of course, a bit nervous about facing students again, so she prepared very carefully. She was relieved when she finally entered the classroom and saw all the bright, young faces. Certainly, the clothes and the hair styles were much different, but she reminded herself that these things always changed from year to year. With growing confidence, she said in a friendly tone, “Good morning, class.” And a student sitting in the front row shouted, “Shut up, bitch!” All the other students laughed.
The first question Mrs. Jones asked the Los Angeles Times editors was, “What happened in America between ‘Good morning, Mrs. Jones’ and ‘Shut up, bitch’?” And her second question was: “Who is going to do something about it?”
The answer to the second question would have been obvious to America’s Founding Fathers, but it is not understood by our incumbent Congressman. When “We the People” ratified the Constitution, we gave NO power to the federal government to secularize our education system. Ronald Reagan recognized this basic constitutional truth when he campaigned for President, promising to work for the abolition of the entire federal Department of Education. When our incumbent Congressman was first elected in 1996, the Republican Party Platform called for the abolition of the Department of Education, as well as numerous other unconstitutional government agencies:
As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.
The National Endowment for the Arts was notorious for its subsidizing of anti-Christian, pornographic “art,” including “art” which featured a figure of Jesus Christ submerged in a container of the artist’s urine. These programs undermine the very heart and soul of the America in which today’s students grow up.
And yet, our incumbent Congressman has not only failed to abolish these unconstitutional agencies, he has consistently voted to INCREASE funding for them.
But it’s not just that these agencies are unconstitutional. They are immoral and anti-Christian. And this is where America’s Founding Fathers would be truly horrified.
If you want to be as wise as the serpents and as gentle as a dove (Matthew 10:16), you need to spend the next 2 minutes reading about the central purposes of American education. You need to know these facts. You have probably never heard the most fundamental purposes of education.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that when a Congressman takes his oath of office to “support the Constitution,” he also promises to support all the foundational charters of our law and government, which the Court correctly identified as our nation’s “Organic Law.” If you go to a library and ask to see a copy of the United States Code, the first volume will have America’s “Organic Law.” You will see the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation (the first Constitution of this new nation), our current Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance was the blueprint for state constitutions. When a Territory wanted to become the next state in the Union, Congress would order it to submit a state constitution which was “consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance.” Many state constitutions repeated nearly word-for-word the educational vision of the Northwest Ordinance:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
There are three things that schools should teach, according to the most basic law of the United States: religion, morality, and knowledge. All three are “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,” something the ACLU emphatically denies.
Students who cannot submit to the authority of the teacher because they haven’t learned “religion and morality” cannot learn the “knowledge” which the teacher seeks to impart. A student who believes he is his own god disrupts the learning environment of others. And as an adult, this student will lack the discipline to work and the willingness to serve the consumer in order to maintain a profitable business.
The federal government has made sure that none of these are taught in our nation’s schools. Clearly, religion and morality have been removed from classrooms under the myth of “the separation of church and state.” But just as clearly, knowledge, has also been systematically purged from public schools, as reflected in consistently declining test scores. Many observers have accurately commented on “the dumbing down” of American students.
In one of the most famous orations in American history, George Washington’s Farewell Address, the “father of his country” warned:
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure—reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—
Our incumbent Congressman has consistently voted in a manner completely at odds with the vision of America’s Founding Fathers. If you only listened to his campaign speeches and never looked at his voting record, this conclusion would surprise you. But if you are as “wise as serpents,” your surprise will turn to anger.
We need a Congressman who passionately opposes unconstitutional federal control of schools. We need a Congressman who sees that federal control of education produces atheistic schools devoid of religion, morality and knowledge. We need a Congressman who understands that without religion and morality in schools, students lack the disciplined ability to submit to teachers’ authority, and therefore lack the ability to accumulate and build upon the knowledge of the past. America’s Founding Fathers would quickly see that nearly 50% of all high school graduates today are functionally illiterate (by modern watered-down standards of literacy) and perhaps 90% are spiritually illiterate.
America’s Founding Fathers would agree that our current Congressman has not kept his oath to defend America’s foundations. He has put Washington D.C. ahead of America. He has put a small clique of powerful Republicans ahead of America. He has put his campaign contributors ahead of America. Despite “good intentions” and conservative-sounding speeches, the federal government is at war with “good government and the happiness of mankind” because it is at war with God. Government schools are killing our kids. Complete parental control over the education of their children must be restored. In a free market, parents will choose schools that promote “Liberty Under God.” America will again produce great leaders and gain the admiration of the world.
Welfare
What schools are to children, “welfare” is to adults. At least America’s Founders would say so. Schools and welfare programs should produce adults who can succeed in life. And the federal government has no constitutional authority to meddle in either one.
Modern politicians believe that the poor are “entitled” to the wealth of the rich. They have a “right” to welfare checks. And the federal government should pass them out.
When our current Congressman was elected, the Republican Party Platform understated the problem when it said,
The current welfare system has spent $5 trillion in the last thirty years and has been a catastrophic failure. Despite this massive effort, conditions in our nation’s poor communities have grown measurably worse. Poverty used to be an economic problem; now it is a social pathology.
The key to welfare reform is restoring personal responsibility and encouraging two-parent households. The path to that goal lies outside of official Washington.
Our current Congressman has consistently voted to increase Washington’s control of welfare. Especially when one considers Medicaid, which the 1996 Republican Party Platform described as follows:
Rife with fraud, poorly administered, with no incentives for patient or provider savings, Medicaid has mushroomed into the nation’s biggest welfare program. Its staggering rate of growth threatens to overwhelm State budgets, while thwarting congressional progress towards a federal balanced budget.
Medicare –– welfare for the elderly –– along with Social Security, are nothing less than scandalous. Federal involvement in this area is completely unconstitutional, even if it were ethical and efficient. But it is unethical and destructive of the security of the elderly. Any private corporation that administered its pension plan the way the federal government administers the bankrupt Social Security system would find its officers in prison. Every dime you have “contributed” to your government retirement “insurance” program has already been spent on other government projects. This is unethical. The Social Security system is bankrupt. A competitive and accountable Free Market would protect the poor, the weak, and the elderly better than Washington D.C. But this letter is already too long to explain the details for those who are not already “wise as serpents and gentle as doves.” Kevin Craig’s website has more information:
www.KevinCraig.US/socialsecurity
Welfare––charity––belongs to families, churches, voluntary associations, and non-profit organizations. Welfare is a religious function of the highest order (see the last part of Matthew 25). We need a Congressman who will aggressively use his leadership skills to remove all welfare, from womb to tomb, out of the control of Washington D.C.
Kevin Craig is the only candidate for Congress that passionately holds this ideal. Kevin Craig is the only candidate for Congress that America’s Founding Fathers would vote for.
Abolish the USA?
Sometime in the next 18 months, Congress will be voting on a proposal to merge the United States and Mexico.
You heard me right.
If you graduated from government schools like I did, I’ve already taxed your attention span. Take a deep breath, do a couple of deep knee-bends, and prepare yourself for some hard truths.
Most Americans don’t realize that the most powerful, influential, and highly-educated people in government, universities, and think-tanks, believe that the whole idea of the “nation” is out-of-date. In the eyes of these elites, all these little, independent “nation-states” are unpredictable, unstable, and uncontrollable. These powerful people could accomplish their goals much more efficiently if there were only one government to deal with: their own. This is the thinking behind “the New World Order” promoted by the last three Presidents.
The Constitution has really been dead meat for at least a century. There has been no shortage of articles in Law Reviews and Journals discussing this. Our form of government would be unrecognizable by a single person who signed the Constitution in 1787. We’re now at the point where Washington D.C. is simply going to abolish the legal formalities and make America a part of “the New World Order.”
If you’ve ever seen Lou Dobbs on CNN, you may have heard him talk about plans in Washington to create something that might be called “The United States of North America.” If you’re interested, you can find out more here:
http://LibertyUnderGod.com/AbolishUSA
The transcript of one of his evening broadcasts is here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/09/ldt.01.html
After The U.S. and Mexico are unified, the entire Western Hemisphere can become a vast regional government like the European Union. Eventually these regional governments can be unified, and the vision of these elites will be complete.
Our incumbent Congressman has given every indication he intends to continue to support this transition.
Our Congressman is very talented, and he knows how to get legislation through Congress. He recently twisted enough arms to get a preliminary step in this transition to global government passed: the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). His next goal is the FTAA, a regional government that will unite 34 nations of the Western Hemisphere. He supports the “Guest-Worker Program” that is designed to provide “full mobility of labor” between Mexico and the United States, and eventually throughout the Western Hemisphere, goals which are part of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP) which our current Congressman will support.
The rhetoric of “border security” is a cover for the real goal of these elites: a global, transnational government for a “New World Order.”
I know this will sound wacky to those who are not as wise as the serpents, but this is a plan to abolish the United States as it was created in 1776. Our Congressman undoubtedly does not think about it in these terms, or use these labels, but this is the reality. America’s Founding Fathers, if they could be here today, would see this. Lou Dobbs saw it:
“This group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It's astonishing.”
Kevin Craig is determined to be the kind of candidate that America’s Founding Fathers and Mothers would vote for. I hope you’ll join them and support a candidate who supports “Liberty Under God.”
Can he win?
Probably not.
Not in 2006, anyway.
Elections are not won by the candidate who is most faithful to the original intent of America’s Founders, but by the candidate with the most money.
Kevin Craig refuses to accept even one penny of campaign contributions.
Here’s how he hopes to win the election without spending a dime on television and radio ads, or political banners and billboards that mess up the landscape.
I’m assuming that since you’re still reading this letter, you believe in Liberty Under God and would vote the way America’s Founders would vote. I’m even assuming that you are willing to “waste” your vote by voting for a Godly principle rather than a “winning” candidate who will not defend Godly principles. Here are the results from the last election:
|
Candidate |
Party |
Votes |
% of Votes |
|
|
Newberry, Jim |
DEM |
84,322 |
28.3% |
|
|
Blunt, Roy |
REP |
210,002 |
70.4% |
|
This is called a “landslide.” The incumbent is the third most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democrats won’t sink enough money in this campaign to beat him. Nothing short of Divine Intervention will keep the incumbent from winning another term in Congress in November.
The enclosed checklist compares his voting record with the principles of the Constitution. You can vote for a “winner,” or you can vote for Liberty Under God. A vote for Liberty Under God sends a clear message. What does a vote for the incumbent mean?
Let’s face it: in 2006 your vote doesn’t matter. What matters is your voice. You can send a message with your vote that will make your voice heard.
WHAT’S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?
Some have told me they like what Kevin Craig stands for, but don’t want to take away votes from the Republican because that might result in a Democrat winning the election.
First of all, I really doubt that Kevin Craig can get 126,000 of the incumbent’s supporters to shift their vote to a third-party candidate. Most voters won’t even hear about Kevin Craig. Most voters don’t think about the issues. “My father voted Republican, and my grandfather before him.” They vote for party, not principle.
But if a candidate running on the platform of “Liberty Under God” successfully shifted enough votes away from the incumbent that an unknown Democrat actually unseated the third most powerful Republican in Congress, this race would be the most talked-about race in the entire nation. And the subject of the conversation would be “Liberty Under God,” not the Democrat who benefited from the fallout of Missouri voters demanding smaller government, and refusing to settle for campaign rhetoric about smaller government. Missouri voters can send a clear, unambiguous message that says “We support Liberty Under God.” If the incumbent is threatened by voters sending such a message, then perhaps his voting record will change. And I absolutely, unqualifiedly guarantee that a Democrat victory would result in a strong Christian conservative running––and winning––in 2008. He might even be a Deacon in the Southern Baptist Church! It is absolutely vital that we get such a representative in Congress, in case Hillary wins in 2008, and in case Congress hasn’t already passed the SPP and the FTAA before then, effectively abolishing the United States.
http://vote-wasters.areCool.net/
If Kevin Craig were to win the election in 2006, the second-place finisher would undoubtedly file a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction prohibiting him from taking the oath of office, based on the decisions of courts in California.
But he can still run for office, and by doing so he can make people think. And maybe make a few gentle Southern Baptist doves as wise as serpents. And maybe change things when it will really count: 2008.
You need to speak out! You need to make your voice heard! This is Kevin’s plan to amplify your voice.
This letter is being sent to more than 25 people, and I’m confident that at least 25 of them will decide to vote for Liberty Under God in 2006.
It’s been said that everybody knows 250 people. There are 250 people from your neighborhood, your church, your place of business, or people whose businesses you patronize, who recognize you and are comfortable with you being in their home or their place of business. They know you’re a sensible American.
|
10% of 250 = 25 |
Out of that number there are 25 people you know who believe in Liberty Under God or could be captivated by that idea in just a few moments. During the next month, spending just five minutes a day, you could persuade those 25 people to vote the same way you do.
|
25 x 25 = 625 |
If all 25 people reading this letter speak to 25 of their friends, we have just created 625 votes for Liberty Under God. Reach one person per day, talk with them for 5 minutes, and in one month you’ve planted the seeds of a momentous harvest.
At the same time you persuade them to vote, you can also motivate these people to find 25 people in their own lives, and duplicate this process of political multiplication. Amaze yourself: do the math:
|
625 x 25 = 15,625 |
We now have 15,625 people shifting their votes, and not one penny in “campaign funds” has been raised or spent. This is a truly significant voting block. We have now shifted the balance of political power toward Liberty Under God, and this Congressional race will be discussed by every political strategist in America.
If this process of multiplication goes just one more round, with everyone at the last level getting 25 people they know to vote for Liberty Under God, more people will be voting for Liberty Under God than voted for all candidates combined in the last election. This political campaign will be on the front page of every newspaper in America:
15,625 x 25 = 390,625
Total Votes cast in 2004 = 298,090
All because YOU were willing to talk to 25 people.
Will you invest 5 minutes a day during the next month to tell your friends to make a statement in defense of Liberty Under God ?
America’s Founders lost their homes, their businesses, in some cases their sons and daughters. Soldiers at Valley Forge lost their feet to frostbite. Modern technology makes it possible for us to stay warm and change the world with the touch of a few buttons.
I’m not asking you to risk your life, your fortune, or your reputation. Talk with your friends for a few moments about Liberty Under God, and ask them to do the same with their friends. Pick up the phone, not a musket. Send an email, not a bayonet.
Download a copy of this letter at
http://KevinCraig.US/letter
Personalize it, print it out, and mail it for 39¢. The postage for ten friends is $3.90. Not exactly “our Lives, our Fortunes,” but it’s real, it’s concrete, and it will make a difference. The mighty oak starts with a small acorn.
Or just email the letter to your friends. It’s Free. Their spam filter will block an email from Kevin Craig, but not from you.
Thank you very much for taking time to read this letter. I know your time is valuable. And thank you for doing whatever you can do to make America a Christian nation once again.
Cordially in Christ,
Your Name
P.S. Kevin’s campaign website is one of the largest campaign websites in the country. It’s an eye-opening education in the principles that made America the greatest, most admired nation in history. At www.KevinCraig.us you can find out what Liberty Under God means on the following issues, and more: