Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

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.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

David Roberts
December 28th, 2011 | LINK

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

Lynn David
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

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

Andrew
December 29th, 2011 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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.