Woops, There It Goes

Jim Burroway

December 28th, 2011

Phil Kayser's endorsement on Ron Paul's campaign website earlier today (above). That same page now (below) (Click to enlarge)

The press release from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign bragging about Christian Reconstrucitonist pastor Phil Kayser’s endorsement is gone. Poof! Just like that.  The Google Cache version is here. And for archival purposes, we’re keeping a copy of that announcement below. I wonder if the Paul Campaign is going to issue a statement, or if they’re going to try to sweep it under the rug just like they did with the newsletters? Anyone taking any bets?

RON PAUL ENDORSED BY EMINENT PASTOR REV. PHIL KAYSER, PH.D.

Dr. Kayser says, “Ron Paul’s strictly Constitutional civics is far closer to Biblical civics than any of the other candidate’s on a whole range of issues.”

ANKENY, Iowa – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by renowned pastor, theologian, and prolific author Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.

Rev. Kayser is the Senior Pastor of Dominion Covenant Church based in Omaha, Nebraska.  The Church has a national footprint including in Iowa where Ron Paul, the 12-term Congressman from Texas, is competing in the January 3, 2012 caucus.

In making his endorsement, Dr. Kayser mentioned he was doing so as a private citizen and not on behalf of his congregation and the organizations with which he is affiliated.

“We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.  We’re thankful for the thoughtfulness with which he makes his endorsement and hope his endorsement and others like it make a strong top-three showing in the caucus more likely,” said Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.

Dr. Kayser has degrees in education, theology and philosophy/ethics.  He is the author of over 40 books and booklets.  The name of one organization that he founded describes well his ministry: Biblical Blueprints.  His passion is to see the comprehensive blueprints of the Scriptures applied to science, civil government, education, art, history, economics, business, and every area of life.

For 15 years Dr. Kayser has been involved in coaching church planters, mentoring seminary students, and teaching seminars on Biblical leadership internationally.  President and founder of the Providential History Festival, he is desirous of seeing a more Biblical philosophy of history being taught at every age level.  Phil is the pastor of Dominion Covenant Church, a very conservative, evangelical church that teaches the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.  His parents were missionaries in Ethiopia for 30 years, with SIM, International, and he continues to have a passion for missions, making teaching trips to other countries and mentoring international leaders.  He has provided leadership to the Heartland Christian Ministries Conference, Evangelical Ministries Fellowship, CELNet, the National Strategy Council, and other evangelical organizations.  He is the professor of ethics at Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida.

Phil Kayser is a frequent conference speaker on many subjects, and he has applied Scripture to politics in three presidential candidate campaigns.  He also has been an occasional guest teacher and consultant at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

If ministering in Iowa, local pastors interested in discussing an endorsement are invited to email the Iowa Director of Voter Outreach, Meghann Walker, at meghannw@ronpaul2012.com.

Dr. Kayser’s full statement of endorsement follows.

Statement from the Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.

I support Ron Paul as the Republican candidate for president for a number of reasons.  The first reason is that he is the only candidate who holds to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., that the Feds can only do what is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution) whereas the other candidates hold to a broad constructionist interpretation (i.e., that the Feds may do whatever is not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution).  It is broad constructionism that has gotten us into the mess we are in today, and you cannot fight liberal broad constructionism with conservative broad constructionism.  Both lack integrity.

The second reason is that he is the only candidate that has a consistent philosophy of economics that will truly resolve America’s problems.  The economics of each of the other candidates is flawed, and in my opinion grossly unbiblical.

The third reason is that Ron Paul’s strictly Constitutional civics is far closer to Biblical civics than any of the other candidate’s on a whole range of issues including non-interventionism in international politics, limitations on what can be a crime, limits of jurisdiction, the rights of interposition and civil resistance, inflation, banking cartels, the national identity card, the American Community Survey, the use of torture by the military, etc.

As a Biblical ethicist I am very concerned about overturning Roe v Wade (something that Ron has sought to do), but I am also extremely concerned about all the areas of lawlessness that have destroyed nations in the past.  What candidates take these things seriously?  I know of only one candidate who obeys God’s clear-cut prohibitions against interventionism in politics: “do not meddle with them” (Deut. 2:5), “do not harass them or meddle with them” (Deut. 2:19), but instead “buy food from them” (Deut. 2:6) – in other words, engage in free trade.  Biblical issues like this should be as easy to understand as Ron Paul’s positions are easy to understand.  He is by far the best candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America.  Even though I strongly disagree with him on some issues, he is the only candidate that I can endorse.

David Roberts

December 28th, 2011

Nothing like transparency in politics, lol. Ron must have gone to the NARTH school of historical revisionism.

Lynn David

December 29th, 2011

More clowning around by the republicans… who’d have thought?!

Andrew

December 29th, 2011

Given Paul’s recent willingness to go along with the repeal of DADT, I think it’s apparent that he doesn’t have a knee-jerk homophobia. I just don’t think he spends much time considering what’s important to our community overall – we aren’t “his people” per se, but I don’t think he has it out for us either.

I do think, however, that part of the necessary process for getting where he’s gotten has involved cozying up to fringies who do have it out for gays, Jews, and a multitude of others. He was willing to accept it at the time because they were within his constituency for the most part, and because it was unlikely to have real national policy impact. And because, frankly he didn’t spend much time thinking about us. It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats.

Now, however, he’s having to do something he’s not really had to consider before: vetting not only his own campaign (which he’s doing spottily), but also people who throw their support behind him.

In that context, I take the retraction of this minister off the website less as a matter of “sweeping it under the rug” than as correcting a mistake – and not all that different from Obama’s unapologetic choice of anti-gay ministers at his inauguration, by the way (lest we employ double standards).

Paul is willing to accept the support, but he’s not prepared to tie his name & reputation (further – he’s still trying to put his newsletters screw up in the past) to someone who thinks, among many other things, that killing gays is okay… but it probably took a little doing to figure that out (especially when no one on your staff really focuses on liaising with the LGBT community).

In short, if Paul believed that killing gays was okay, he’d have left the citation on the website. He doesn’t usually dance back from issues he truly believes in, even when they’re wildly unpopular (i.e. being okay with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons).

As for lack of support of the anti-sodomy ruling, as inconvenient as it is for us, it is consistent with his stance of the supremacy of states rights over federalism and is not intrinsically and intentionally anti-gay, but anti-gay by consequence. The pesky 14th Amendment notwithstanding, mind you. What’s unfortunate is that Paul seems to put principle and consistency ahead of real world consequences. Which is easy when you’re old, white, straight, and a member of the elite.

Ryan

December 29th, 2011

I read some of this guy’s writings today. He even supports the Death Penalty for those who work on the Sabbath “under certain circumstances”. He’s the wing nuttiest of all right wing nuts. Whoever in the Paul campaign who failed to vett him properly needs to resign.

Andrew

December 30th, 2011

Agreed – and here’s my take on this. Much more relevant than issues is the inability to vet properly. I said the same thing when McCain brought Palin on board… if you can’t vet during the campaign, what faith is anyone supposed to have that your administration won’t be full of bigots or nincompoops?

Timothy Kincaid

December 30th, 2011

Administrations may have varying degrees of bigots but there is one constant: all administrations that I’ve seen were simply dripping with nincompoops.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

FBI Reports Massive Surge In Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes in 2015

Baptist General Convention of Texas Warns Churches in Dallas and Austin Over LGBT Inclusion

Trump Selects Alt-Right Nationalist As "Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor"

WITNESS: Bean Blossom, Indiana

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.