Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain why I am
running for Congress. This is "the ten minute version."
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.
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.
I mean "binding the government down by the chains of the
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.
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:
but not license;
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
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
- 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
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
I believe my case is just the tip of the
iceberg; a symptom of a national epidemic.
I believe any government that will not
God" is a government that thinks it is
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
- Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school
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."
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:
- "Kevin Craig is an anarchist."
- "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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
- millions of dollars are raised for a political campaign
- thousands of people tell their friends to vote for a Christian
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