Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Kevin Craig - Election 2004

Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives

  1. Abortion
  2. Accused, Rights of
  3. The "Administrative State"
  4. Adoption
  5. Africa
  6. Agriculture
  7. AIDS
  8. Alcohol
  9. Amtrak
  10. Animal Rights
  11. Antitrust
  12. Arts
  13. Asia
  14. AssetForfeiture
  15. Bailouts for Corporations
  16. Balkan Terrorism
  17. Banking
  18. BATF
  19. Bio-Ethics
  20. Bureaucratic Boards
  21. Budget
  22. Bureaucracy
  23. Cabinet Departments
  24. Campaign Finance
  25. Capital Punishment
  26. Childcare
  27. China
  28. Civil Liberties
  29. Clinton
  30. College
  31. Commerce
  32. Congress
  33. Conscription
  34. Conspiracy
  35. Constitution
  36. Consumer Rights
  37. Corporate Welfare
  38. Corporate Fraud
  39. Crime
  40. Cuba
  41. Databases and Privacy
  42. Defense Budget
  43. Defense Policy
  44. Deficits
  45. Delegation of Legislative Duties
  46. America: Democracy or Republic?
  47. Disabilities
  48. Disaster Insurance
  49. Discrimination
  50. Drugs, War on
  51. Drugs, International War on
  52. Economics, Free Market
  53. Education
  54. Electricity
  55. Electronic Speech
  56. Energy
  57. Environmental Risks
  58. Environment
  59. Environmentalism
  60. Euthanasia
  61. Executive Branch
  62. Executive Agencies
  63. Family
  64. FCC
  65. FDA
  66. Federal Police
  67. Financial Deregulation
  68. Flag-Burning
  69. Foreign Affairs
  70. Foreign Aid
  71. Foreign Policy
  72. Gambling
  73. Gender Discrimination
  74. Global War on Drugs
  75. Globalization
  76. U.S. as Global Cop
  77. Global Warming
  78. Government Corporations
  79. Government, Nature of
  80. Greenhouse Effect
  81. Guns
  82. Hate Crimes
  83. HealthCare
  84. HHS
  85. History of Limited Government in America
  86. Homeschooling
  87. Homosexuality
  88. HUD
  89. National I.D.
  90. IMF
  91. Immigration
  92. Imperialism
  93. India
  94. Intelligence Agencies
  95. Interior. Dept of
  96. Internet
  97. Iraq
  98. Islamic Fundamentalism and Oil
  99. "Isolationism"
  100. Japan
  101. Judicial Reform
  102. Jury
  103. Justice Dept.
  104. Korea
  105. Labor Law
  106. Labor
  107. Latin America
  108. Law Enforcement Without Big Government
  109. Left-Right
  110. Legislative Branch
  111. What is the Libertarian Party?
  112. Liberty Under God
  113. Liberties
  114. Life, Right to
  115. MAD
  116. Medical Marijuana
  117. Media
  118. Mental Illness
  119. Mideast
  120. Minimum Wage
  121. Monetary Reform
  122. Money and Banking
  123. NASA
  124. National Security
  125. National Service
  126. NATO
  127. NMD
  128. Oath of Office
  129. OSHA
  130. Patents
  131. Patriotism
  132. PGP
  133. Political Theory
  134. Police
  135. Population
  136. Pornography and Censorship
  137. Ending Pornography without Prison
  138. Prisons
  139. Free Market Alternatives to Prisons
  140. Privatization
  141. Property
  142. Prosperity
  143. Race
  144. Regulation
  145. Religion
  146. Religious Freedom: 1st Amendment
  147. RNEP
  148. The Rule of Law
  149. Russia
  150. Sanctions Against Iraq
  151. Securities Markets
  152. Security or Liberty?
  153. "Separation of Church and State"
  154. Sexuality
  155. Social Security
  156. Speech
  157. Sprawl
  158. State Department
  159. The State as Criminal
  160. Taiwan
  161. Takings
  162. Taxation
  163. Technophobia
  164. Telecommunications
  165. Term Limits
  166. Terrorism
  167. Tobacco
  168. Tort
  169. Trade
  170. Transportation
  171. Treasury
  172. Tribunals vs. Courts
  173. TVA
  174. United Nations
  175. Unemployment Insurance
  176. Unemployment
  177. Unions
  178. USPS
  179. Veterans
  180. "Vine & Fig Tree"
  181. Victimless Crimes
  182. Victims' Rights
  183. Vote Fraud
  184. Vouchers
  185. War
  186. Welfare

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why I am running for Congress. This is "the ten minute version." See also

This website contains nearly 200 separate web pages with informative links on the important issues of our day. I have listed these issues on the right side of this page. Obviously I don't feel I can really explain my reasons for running in just ten minutes. Being an American is a lifelong responsibility, requiring a lifelong willingness to study the issues and be diligent in defense of "Liberty under God." I hope you take time to study the issues -- even after the 2006 election is over.

Liberty -- Under God

     I am running for Congress because I believe in "Liberty under God." "Liberty under God" is the philosophy that made America the most prosperous and most admired nation on earth.
     I admire America's Founding Fathers, and I'm confident not a single one of them would vote for either the Democrat or Republican candidates in this race:

     America's Founding Fathers risked "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" in defense of a nation that stood for Liberty Under God.
     By "Liberty" I mean "binding the government down by the chains of the Constitution" (Jefferson) and protecting our God-given rights; I mean using persuasion rather than government force if my neighbor smokes too much or engages in a tasteless lifestyle.

    When the Framers of the Constitution spoke of America as being a nation "Under God" they meant a nation that obeys moral absolutes such as found in the Ten Commandments: "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." These are the values that keep our streets safe, make high SAT scores possible, fuel a vibrant economy, and will make America once again the most admired nation on earth.

     I am running for Congress because I see "Liberty under God" being attacked in our day by socialism and government-imposed secularism.

     As the Libertarian candidate I believe I most closely represent the fundamental values of the Constitution:
          Liberty, but not license;
          Freedom AND personal responsibility.
     Too many Americans -- and most Congressmen -- have forgotten the values for which the Founding Fathers risked their lives and which made America great.  Unconstitutional government destroys our liberties and encourages irresponsibility; it stifles creativity and productivity and breeds slavish dependence.

     I am running for Congress because no other candidate is committed to the principle of "Liberty under God" above partisan politics:

  • Both the Republican incumbent and the Democratic challenger sacrifice liberty to the myths of socialism, voting for bigger government and more taxes, and against Free Enterprise and personal responsibility. The incumbent is well-known for "bringing home the bacon," that is, rewarding those who voted for him with money taken from other taxpayers.
  • Neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate are willing to champion "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" above today's trends of relativism and secularism.

     America needs an aggressive defender of "Liberty under God" in Congress, someone who will stand on principle against socialism and government-imposed secularism. The two major parties have utterly repudiated this responsibility.

The Oath of Office

     Incredibly, in our day socialism and government-imposed secularism have gained such power that even if I win the election, powerful forces may well initiate legal challenges to keep me from taking the oath of office on Inauguration Day, 2007.
     The same court which declared the Pledge of Allegiance to be "unconstitutional" told me I could not have a license to practice law even though I passed the California Bar Exam. Why? Because I believe America must return to the values of our Founding Fathers and become a nation of "Liberty Under God."

     I believe my case is just the tip of the iceberg; a symptom of a national epidemic.

     I believe any government that will not be "under God" is a government that thinks it is god.

     My allegiance to God is greater than my allegiance to the government, and courts across this nation have ruled that "extremists" with this "attitude" cannot be lawyers, teachers, or even American citizens.

     America is no longer a "city upon a hill," a beacon of liberty and morality to the world.

     Join me, please, in a short history lesson, surveying America's past and our deplorable present condition. The future of America does not depend on tinkering with Social Security or the "No Child Left Behind" program. The future of America depends on Americans understanding the big picture -- issues that make America a dramatically different nation in 2006 than our Founders created in 1776.

     In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that America was a Christian nation (Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.). The Holy Trinity Church in New York was told by federal immigration authorities that it could not hire the Pastor of its choice. Their choice of Pastor was from Britain, and there was a law against cheap "imported labor." The Supreme Court rebuked the immigration authorities, saying that America was a Christian nation, and our laws should never be interpreted in a manner that would exclude a Christian from America in this way.

     But in 1931 the Court changed its mind (U.S. v. Macintosh). In this case a pastor from Canada, already teaching at the Yale Divinity School, wanted to become an American citizen. Immigration authorities denied his petition on the grounds that he had some possible objections to government policies.

     Now let's stop and think for a moment. Do you know anyone who does not have some objections to at least one government policy? If Janet Reno ordered you to drive a tank into the side of a home filled with women and children -- solely on the grounds that the people inside had unconventional religious beliefs and defended their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms -- would you obey the government? Rev. Macintosh said he would disobey any government law which he believed to be contrary to God's Law, just as the Apostles, who wrote much of the New Testament from jail cells, said "we must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).

     The Macintosh Court said your loyalty to the State must be greater than your loyalty to God. The Court said your allegiance to the government must be "unconditional." Unbelievable. The Court tipped its hat to the Holy Trinity decision, and then booted it out the door.

     Then in 1945 the Supreme Court told a law student named Clyde Summers, who had passed the Bar Exam and was qualified to receive his license to practice law, that he could not be allowed to take the required oath to "support the Constitution" because his allegiance to God was higher than his allegiance to the State.

     America was no longer a nation "under God."

     After I passed the Bar Exam, a federal district Court told me that the Supreme Court's decision against Summers barred me from the practice of law as well.

     If I am elected, I will argue passionately that I should be permitted to take the oath required of Congressmen in the U.S. Constitution (Article VI). In fact, I'm campaigning on the claim that the incumbent has not kept his oath of office, and his Democratic challenger has no intention of doing so.

     Of course there is nobody would doubt that both candidates are men of integrity who love their country. But I'll bet neither were aware that the Supreme Court has demanded "unconditional allegiance" to the State, and has declared that Christians who place God above government could not become attorneys. And I'll bet neither are aware of what the Court and our Founding Fathers have said the oath of office requires.

"Peaceful Settlement of Disputes"

I'm sure both the Republican and the Democrat will agree with me that the oath to "support the Constitution" requires a Congressman to oppose violent revolution. The Court in Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154  (1971), declared that the "support oath" assured the government that the applicant is "dedicated to the peaceful and reasoned settlement of disputes between men, and between a man and his government." But only the Libertarian Party makes this a requirement of everyone who joins the party. Members must promise:

I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

     Democrats believe in the initiation of force to achieve their political and social goals. Not content with persuasion, they resort to threats of unspeakable violence against those who do not want to give their family's money to Democratic welfare programs. Republicans also resort to threats of force against those who do not want their family's money to be used to reward defense contractors that contribute to Republican Party causes. Only Libertarians are committed in principle to using only persuasion to foster personal responsibility.

"Affirmation of 'Organic Law'"

Even many Libertarians, however, will be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court has declared that the oath to "support the Constitution" also includes "an affirmation of 'organic law'." Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 685 (1972).

     What is the "organic law?"

     It is the fundamental law of our nation. Go to a library and ask for a copy of the United State Code, and the first volume will have four of these charters of America's "organic law": The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of 1789, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

     When territories wanted to join the Union as states, Congress would pass an "enabling act" which usually required the state constitution to be consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance.

     Any politician who takes an oath to "support the Constitution" is also taking an oath to support the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance, according to the Supreme Court.

     In particular, one line from Article III of the Northwest Ordinance was quoted verbatim in the state constitutions of many states up until 1875 (Nebraska) and thus became part of the "organic law" of many states. This part of America's Organic Law makes a stunning declaration about the purpose of education. In his concurring opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, the case which removed voluntary prayer from government schools, Justice Douglas admitted:

Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in Article III that 
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,  schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

     Those who try to keep religion and morality separated from education run contrary to the most fundamental values of America. Not a single person who signed the Constitution believed that education could or should be "secular" and that government schools should not teach "religion, morality and knowledge." Nor should we.

     Because the education of children is intensely personal and inescapably value-laden, government coercion is inappropriate. Atheists should not be taxed to provide Christian education, and Christians should not be taxed to provide education which advances the religion of Secular Humanism.

     Liberty is the answer. Freedom of choice will restore America's values. "The separation of school and state" is the most powerful way to restore "Liberty under God."

     Liberty and choice in education would have a dramatic effect on our schools and our entire nation. Most Americans intuitively believe in the conclusions of our Founding Fathers, that morality is an essential part of a child's education. If most parents had a choice, they would send their children to schools which had a place for "religion, morality and knowledge," instead of government-run schools which ignore all three.

     We need a Free Market in education.

     Neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate will be a passionate champion of "the separation of school and state." Neither will push for education which reflects the values that made America the most admired nation on earth. Neither candidate will take the most important step in ensuring good government and American prosperity in the future.

     Whenever a social system appears to fail -- charity, business, protection of the environment -- politicians call for more government power, and more threats of force against those who resist. In every case the apparent failure of private charity, businesses, or protection of the community could have been avoided if schools had produced a generation of students filled with "religion, morality and knowledge," the values that made America great before politicians become omnipresent. True religion is the protection and care of the weak (James 1:27); good character prevents cooked corporate books; future-oriented Americans care for the environment.

     Greed, selfishness, short-sightedness, exploitation, and ignorance cannot be solved by Congress. They can only be solved by "Liberty under God."

     Promoting "religion, morality and knowledge" is best achieved by getting politicians out of the way.

     America became a great nation without a god-like federal government, and messianic politicians who claim they can save America. America is still a great nation in spite of a federal government that thinks it is god.

     I am running for Congress to get Washington out of the way of America's greatness.

Why Some People Will Not Vote for Kevin Craig

You may have heard some criticisms of my positions. Here are the two most important:

  1. "Kevin Craig is an anarchist."
  2. "Kevin Craig wants to impose a theocracy."

Am I an anarchist? Obviously not, since "everybody knows" that an anarchist is a bomb-throwing assassin who wants to destroy all order and harmony, and I said above that I am committed to "the peaceful resolution of disputes between man and his government." My objection to most government policies is that they destroy the order of the Free Market and create chaos which benefits only a few.

     But there is a sense in which Kevin Craig is an anarchist. Jesus said to His disciples:

The kings of the nations love to be "archists" (transliteration of the Greek word), but it shall not be so among you. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a servant who will give his life to rescue His people.

In this Christian context, one who does not want to be an "archist" ("anarchist") is one who wants to be of service to others, rather than ruling over them. I hope I am guilty of that. I have spent most of my adult life trying to of service to my neighbors and my country.

     I am a radical capitalist. I believe socialism never works better than Free Enterprise. It violates basic economic law. Further, I believe socialism is immoral; it violates "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Capitalists earn their money; socialism is theft. Capitalism is voluntary; socialism is compulsory. I am very suspicious of politicians and "government."

Impose a Theocracy?

"Theocracy" comes from two Greek words, theos, which means "God," and kratein, which means "rule." The word has nothing to do with priests or churches. It's a smoke-screen put up by people who don't want to be bound by the Declaration of Independence and "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Theocracy means a nation "under God." In the purest sense of the word, America was designed to be a decentralized Theocracy, with "Liberty Under God," and "a wall of separation" between the State and the various churches.

I find it ironic that someone who is accused of being an "anarchist" because he so consistently opposes government imposition of values, can also be accused of wanting to "impose" a Theocracy. I am the most consistent, principled opponent of government-imposed anything among all the candidates.

The reason why these two completely contradictory charges can be made and entertained is because our government-run schools have left most Americans ignorant of the most fundamental principles of our society. Your vote for Kevin Craig says "I want to change all that."

Why Vote for a "Loser?"

The incumbent won the last election with nearly 80% of the vote - a huge landslide. He has over one-million dollars in his campaign war chest. The overwhelming majority of voters in his district have no interest or ability to finish reading as far as you have read. The incumbent will win re-election, and he will claim a "mandate" to continue the same semi-socialist, semi-secularist policies that he has voted for during the past 24 years.

Your vote for Kevin Craig sends the clearest possible message to the incumbent that you want things to change. Your vote for Kevin Craig tells the incumbent to honor the principle of "Liberty Under God."

America is either going to become part of a totalitarian dictatorship, or America is going to return to the ideal of "Liberty Under God." If the latter is the case, there is going to come a time when a Christian Libertarian will be elected to Congress. That will come about only if at least one of the following takes place:

  1. millions of dollars are raised for a political campaign
  2. thousands of people tell their friends to vote for a Christian Libertarian.

The millions of dollars are not likely. Our current Congressman has raised nearly two million dollars because contributors expect something in return. Libertarians don't believe in using the force of Government to redistribute wealth. So how can you and I begin to get thousands of people to vote for a Christian Libertarian?

Sociologists say everyone knows 250 people. You know people at work, church, business, neighborhood. There are people who recognize you as a loyal customer, and are glad to see you walk in the doors of their business. You have clients in your Rolodex. If you were to persuade 25 of those people to vote for a Christian Libertarian, and also convince each of them to persuade 25 people they know to do the same, you will get thousands of people to vote for a Christian Libertarian. First you get 25 votes, then those 25 create 625 votes, then those 625 generate 15,625 votes, then 390,625 people are voting for "Liberty Under God," which is more than the total number of votes cast in the 2004 elections! But YOU must start this chain by taking a few minutes of time to change the thinking of people you know.

America's Founding Fathers were willing to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in defense of "Liberty Under God." Many lost family members, their homes and their businesses. If you're not willing to talk to 25 people, "Liberty Under God" will have to wait for another day.

Send email to KevinCraig @ KevinCraig.US