Phil Kayser's endorsement of Ron Paul is the tip of the iceberg

Yesterday, I reported that Omaha pastor and Christian reconstructionist, Phil Kayser, endorsed Ron Paul for President. I pointed out that Kayser advocates the death penalty as viable for gays, juvenile delinquents and those committing other biblical offenses. Paul enthusiastically accepted the endorsement and, in turn, endorsed Kayser’s assessment of Paul politics. Kayser claimed that Paul’s views were the closest to biblical teaching of any of the other candidates. After Talking Points Memo posted an article about the endorsement, the Paul campaign removed the press release touting the “eminent” pastor’s endorsement.

Although the Paul campaign has not commented on the removal of the endorsement, it seems clearly connected to the adverse press generated by publication of the minister’s views on the death penalty. One might argue that Paul did not know of the minister’s views. He has claimed that he did not know about the racist and bigoted material that went out in newsletters bearing his name in the 1980s and 90s. He would probably claim he did not know Kayser’s views.

This seems implausible to me for two reasons. One, my impression as an evangelical is that Kayser is not well known outside of Christian reconstructionist circles. The Paul campaign’s description of Kayser as “eminent” is curious given that he teaches at a very small theonomist college and he does not pastor a well known mega-church. Someone with the campaign clearly researched his background and decided to glowingly tout the endorsement.

Second, Ron Paul ties to Christian reconstructionism go back a long way. Prominent Christian reconstructionist, Gary North, worked for Paul in the 1970s and periodically writes in glowing terms about Paul. North also favors the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery and other offenses listed as warranting death in Mosaic law.

In a 2007 article, North compared Paul to Mahatma Gandhi, writing on the same website where Paul also prolifically posts, North claimed:

What has this to do with Ron Paul, who is running for President? At least this much: he also opposes violence, he also opposes empire, and he also believes in the long run that justice will prevail. So, he does what Gandhi did. He keeps telling the story of how a better society can be built, must be built, and will eventually be built when men reduce their commitment to violence as a way of shaping the world. This includes violence committed by the civil government.

They called Gandhi the mahatma: the great self. Ron Paul is the mahatma of self-government.

Earlier this month, North a suggested speech for Ron Paul’s inauguration in 2013. It is clear that North, a consistent reconstructionist, believes Ron Paul is promoting a message which resonates with reconstructionism. The message now is essentially the same message now as when North worked for Paul in the 1970s. North wrote on December 21:

In June of 1976, I was Ron Paul’s speechwriter. Shortly after I joined his staff as his newsletter writer and economic analyst, I recommended that he do what I had been doing for a year: buy a Code-A-Phone telephone answering machine and make a weekly 3-minute recording for people in his districts to call. He could send the tape to his office in the district, where the machine would be set up at a local phone number. Residents could call it for free. He thought this was a good idea. So began his weekly speeches.

I wrote his first talk. He later told me that he didn’t like reading a script written by anyone else, so he had decided to record his own. As far as I know, that was the last speech anyone ever wrote for him.

He used that machine for the next two-and-a-half years. After his defeat in November 1976, he posted a weekly phone message. The weekly report became a tool for a comeback. In 1978, he defeated the man who had barely defeated him (268 votes) in 1976.

North was briefly a staffer for Paul when Paul was first elected to Congress and wrote his newsletter (I wonder if Gary North knows anything about those Ron Paul reports). Given this background, Kayser’s endorsement is really not at all out of the ordinary for Paul. I could be wrong, but I think Paul’s views are shaped and driven by a belief that central government is the enemy of freedom and prosperity. As I understand him, Paul wants all politics that matter to be local, allowing states and local governments to decide how to handle matters of private conduct, such as sexuality, drug use, marriage.

I think this rejection of a strong central government is what brings Paul and reconstructionists together, and has for a long time. Paul apparently believes laws criminalizing homosexuality are faulty but he defends the rights of local jurisdictions (e.g., Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case) to determine via legislation how to handle such things. Reconstructionists, such as Kayser in Omaha, want freedom from the central government to apply biblical law to willing local jurisdictions. Apparently, that is ok with Dr. Paul, unless of course, saying it out loud hurts him politically. In that case, the endorsement just goes away.

"I found the following interesting: "if the Court, in your response, believes that you are ..."

Every Gospel for Asia Donor Should ..."
"Ah - I don't remember seeing the term used. The change in practice has been ..."

K.P. Yohannan Blesses and Consecrates Holy ..."
"U.S. District Court, so no. Cameras are not allowed in Federal courts."

Every Gospel for Asia Donor Should ..."
"Not that I'm aware of, and certainly not for public distribution."

Every Gospel for Asia Donor Should ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StraightGrandmother

    NOM going nuts! LOL!

    I am not sure this blog by NOM is right. I remember Ron Paul saying that he would support a Constitutional amendment making heterosexual only marriage the law of the land.

    “”Ron Paul holds positions that many conservatives support, but his position on marriage is far out of the mainstream and is simply unacceptable,” Brown said. “Marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation of American society and American families. It is truly radical for a serious presidential candidate to blithely cast marriage aside, suggesting that any private arrangement between adults can be called marriage. Marriage uniquely serves the common good and America deserves a president who respects that. Quite frankly, RON PAUL IS WORSE ON MARRIGE THAN EVEN BARACK OBAMA.”

    I rally hope everyone here goes to the and uses the Contact Us Page and request that they put up on their website where Ron Paul stands on civil rights for sexual minorities. He has an issues page but nothing at all about sexual minorities. That is not fair. He should come out of the closet and state clearly his position.

  • and yet most pastors in omaha nebraska wont call out kayser for his legalism

    no wonder omaha churches are so weak, you have christians in omaha who are scared of doing the right thing and calling out a wackjob like Kayser

    and you got pressure groups on both the left and right running omaha’s churches who basically scare people into not doing the right thing

    Kayser is allowed to get away with what he does, is cause christian leaders in the Omaha Nebraska metro area

    on both sides theology-wise and politcally refuse to call him out on his NAR like teachings and agenda

    and sadly are also allowing NAR peddlers like him to continue without criticism or rebuke in omaha

  • btw: the local media isnt event mentioning this story about Kayser and Ron Paul

    why is that Omaha world herald

    and KETV channel 7 and WOWT channel 6 and KMTV channel 3

    the omaha world herald and tv stations KETV and WOWT and KMTV ‘s silence on Kayser speaks volumes, dont it folks.

  • One might argue that Paul did not know of the minister’s views. He has claimed that he did not know about the racist and bigoted material that went out in newsletters bearing his name in the 1980s and 90s. He would probably claim he did not know Kayser’s views.

    If Paul is true to form, he will probably claim exactly this — that the minister’s endorsement was accepted and placed on the website by a staffer on the Paul campaign, without Paul’s knowledge.

    Mind you, if I were running for President, where it would be my role to pick the Secretaries of Defense and State, along with other Cabinet heads, and also possibly nominate new SCOTUS justices, I don’t think I’d be so quick to remind the public that I have a long history of totally failing to vet the backgrounds of my own staff members!

  • Lynn David

    This is the reason we have primaries to weed out those who do not follow reasonable and thoughtful courses towards making decisions. In my mind Bachmann, Perry (several times), Cain and now Paul have all failed aspects of that test. That most of those continue on as Republican candidates only goes to show how much disarray the party is in.

    BTW…. Romney went ahead of Gingrich in the national Gallup Poll recently.

  • I think that Paul is an antisemitic, homophobic and racist schmuck. Moreover, I think you’ll find direct connections to Rushdoony (sp?). HOWEVER, it seems unfair to hold him accountable for the antisemitic, homophobic and racist schmucks who endorse him. Confusion of correlation and causation?

    Seriously, some of the people who are drawn to Paul are amazing. Aside from the dominionists (which is easier to type than reconstructionists), he has the whole Stormfront set rooting section (“Gimme an H!”) If that’s not enough wingnuttery,there’s Alex Jones and the tin-foil truther troglodytes.

    Come to think of it, maybe he should be judged by the people he appeals to. I think that you can safely omit Paul Krugmann from that list.

  • StraightGrandmother

    If I was *forced* to have a Republican President out of this lot, I suppose I would rather it be Romney. At least he is not waving his God Flag in our faces every day. What Ron Paul wants to close down is truly terrifying. Did you read his plan to restore America?

    He wants to shut down the Education Dept. Well I hope Warren can get another job then somewhere as there go Pell Grants and Stafford loans for college students. At least 80% of our colleges and universities would close if we eliminate the Education Dept who manages all those student loan programs.

    He wants to shut down the energy Dept. I guess he will simply sell to big oil our national oil reserves at there would be no management in place to run the program. If Iran gets in a snit and blockades the Straights of Hormuse (sp) and we have no National Oil reserves what do you think will happen?

    Interior dept, Ron Paul will shut that department down. There go our National Parks which is run out of the Interior Dept. I guess they would just get a big tarp to put over the statue of Liberty and cinch it tight when the last man left, as that is a National Park.

    Take a look at how Ron Paul wants to restore America

  • @StraightGrandmother Were I forced to vote for a GOPer it would probably be Huntsman. At least he seems comparably sane and reasonably consistent.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Me to Dave, I would much prefer John Huntsman former Governor of Utah who is not in the Iowa group. Out of the Iowa group I would pick Romney (again if I was forced)

    I would prefer Huntsman as a first choice and Romney as a second choice. At least Huntsman does not support a Constitutional Amendment banning civil marriage for sexual minorities. I swear I read somewhere that Ron Paul said civil marriage for sexual minorities is a States Rights issue but he would support a Constitutional Amendment to usurp states rights and enshrine discrimination in our Federal Constitution.

    John Huntsman does what Ron Paul does, go to his website to look what his policy would be, and there is nothing at all listed for sexual minorities. Ron Paul has a position statement on homeschooling but nothing on civil rights for sexual minorities. John Huntsman likewise says nothing on this topic on his website.


    is reporting on this story also.


    the omaha world herald

    KETV channel 7 of omaha

    WOWT channel 6 of omaha

    KMTV channel 3 of omaha

    refuse to report om Kayser. I guess they are supporters of Kayser since they are covering up this Omaha nebraska story.

  • Jim Guinnessey

    Self-appointed Omaha messiah Pastor Kayser, Ron Paul, the GOP clowns vying for the hateful votes of Iowan Republican evangelicals in the upcoming Iowa primary only point to what most of the world thinks about today’s USA: a nation of idiots, political panderers, clowns, greedy warmongers and religious screwballs!

  • God commands specific penalties for specific behavior that is against the Creators scriptural given Laws, death penalty for unrepeated homosexual lifestyle is clearly one of them.

    God hates the acts of homosexuality primarily due to the harm it does to partakers and society as a whole.

    Show me a man that embraces such perverse acts and I’ll show you a perverse man.

    Show me a society hat embraces such perverse acts and I’ll show you a perverse society.

    Paul Hansen

  • @Paul, “God commands specific penalties for specific behavior that is against the Creators scriptural given Laws…”

    So what about eating shellfish and wearing clothes woven of two different materials? Hope you don’t have any polyester blends in the closet.

    Speaking of in the closet, I have good friends who are homosexual and they are good people. Unlike your ilk. And most of them are afraid to even be who they are because of people like you.

    Do you know who else the Bible says should die? Non-believers. So you’d kill me because I don’t subscribe to your sky god. Give me a break. You want theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia. Let me know how that works out for you.

  • Mark

    Ron Paul’s views on marriage are misrepresented. 1) He is the only evangelical candidate. 2) He is the only Constitutionalist candidate. 3) He has libertarian leaning in some areas that interface biblical faith, the US Constitution, and individualism.

    His view on marriage is that the federal STATE should stay out of it (Constutionalism), that the act of homosexuality is sin (Evangelical), and that a State such as Texas has the right to legislate against the act (Constitutionalist). I think that he is willing to let all marriages be governed by civil contracts without the federal STATE or the many States being involved (Libertarian). So–please speak the truth in love oh fellow evangelicals! (BTW–Ron Paul has changed his position on the death penalty. Because of the massive bias against blacks in the USA, he thinks it should be abolished. This is more libertarian than biblical but has merits IF we correct the racial biases and retain the death penalty for murder).