Poker Players Alliance rates Chuck Baldwin
Last Sunday, Stephen Gordon indicated that Ron Paul and Bob Barr (with Wayne Allyn Root) had received an A+ rating from the Poker Players Alliance.
“ONLY Ron Paul will ever be Ron Paul,” wrote one commenter. “There will never be another. But if you want someone who REALLY shares his policies AND has a shot at this thing, look to the constitution party nominee, CHUCK BALDWIN.”
“I don’t know where Chuck Baldwin stands on this issue,” responded the person who wrote the voting guide. “His background and associations actually match those most opposed to Internet poker freedom, but he may have a different opinion.”
The Poker Players Alliance has now updated their voter’s guide with the following information:
Constitution Party:Presidential Nominee: Chuck Baldwin
F. Pastor of the Crossroads (FL) Baptist Church. Former state chairman of the Florida Moral Majority.Baldwin has made many statements condemning gaming, including “Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants and criminals? Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and an unobtrusive federal government?” Additionally, from the Constitution Party platform: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.”
June 4th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Baldwin, Nader, McKinney , blah blah blah
let’s do some serious damage support BOB BARR for President
We need your help, please donate today www.bobbarr2008.com
June 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
The PPA article is at http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential-candidates-and-internet-poker-rights/ .
June 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I’m a bit confused. I thought the CP was supposed to most closely represent Ron Paul but looking at their platform I can’t say I agree with that. Aside from their position on gambling it looks like they want the government to regulate pornography as well? The amount of moral policing in their platform is a little frightening.
Well, it doesn’t really matter much since the majority of Americans (including me) aren’t going to be able to vote for Baldwin anyway since he won’t be on the ballot.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Digg at http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Poker_Players_Alliance_Rates_Const_Party_s_Chuck_Baldwin
June 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin:
The Constitution Party’s platform opposes gaming. It says: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.”
Baldwin has made a number of similar statements:
http://www.constitutionparty.net/news_print.php?aid=36 : “Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants and criminals? Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and an unobtrusive federal government?” Keep in mind that he didn’t write, “Can you imagine a country where individuals each chose of their free will to not gamble”. Rather, he wrote, “Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling”. That’s the key. He’s imaging (and advocating) a country where the majority collectively assert rights over individuals in the area of all gaming. So long as this is at the state level and not the federal, Baldwin is happy.
From www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin239.htm , by Baldwin: “George Barna summarized his findings by saying, “Faith makes very little difference in their [Christians] lives: believers do not train their children to think or act differently [from the world]. It’s no wonder that they [Christian children] grow up to be just as involved in gambling, excessive drinking, and any other unbiblical behavior as everyone else.”
June 4th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
If Baldwins views are simular to mine which I think they are then what he is really opposed to is state sponsered gambling. The governement should not sponsor any gambling and any regulation should come at the state level.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I’m still gonna start a Libertarians for Baldwin website, right after I’m finished with my Vegetarians for Pork supper club meeting.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Citizen1,
The party platform essentially calls for removal of the federal government from all gaming. Their main complaint here is to stop Indian gaming from being permitted by the federal government. The next step is to ban gaming at the state level.
One thing that caught my attention is their condemnation of “legalized” gaming, as if the natural state of gaming is illegality and that all legal gaming is government sponsored. Libertarians look at government-permitted gaming as “regulated” gaming.
Here’s the South Carolina CP state party platform:
http://www.sdakcp.org/cpplatform.html#gambling
We believe that the basic principle of gambling (as defined by the courts) is a game of chance in which money is either lost or won, and as such is an immoral activity. It is a denial of the Biblical teaching of the rule of God’s providence over our lives, a denial of the work-ethic, and a denial of the principles of stewardship of the wealth that God has entrusted to us. Therefore we oppose all forms of gambling, whether illegal or government-sponsored.
Again, note how all gaming (even golf-course bets, I imagine) are either illegal or “government sponsored”.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“I’m still gonna start a Libertarians for Baldwin website, right after I’m finished with my Vegetarians for Pork supper club meeting.”
Hehe. Nice one!
June 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“I’m still gonna start a Libertarians for Baldwin website, right after I’m finished with my Vegetarians for Pork supper club meeting.”
That sounds more like a Libertarians for Barr group.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Looks like the Barf campaign is a little scared that the MUCH more libertarian Baldwin will get more votes…
June 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
disinter, we all know that Baldwin, while a great candidate for the CP, is no more libertarian that McCain. Reference the multitude of Baldwin quotes elsewhere on TPW if you are still confused.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Justin – Baldwin did not/does not support:
The patriot act
Illegal wars of aggression
Drug war
Barf voted for the first two and was a drug war prosecutor, not to mention he worked for the CIA for nearly 10 years. He is the antithesis to libertarianism.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
disinter –
Baldwin does support laws that regulate what you do in your bedroom, he supports removing police from protecting abortion clinics. Baldwin regularly refers people to Alan Stang’s website, who is one of the more bigoted and nutty people
From Stang’s (http://www.alanstang.com/) front page:
“That is how it must be because winner-take-all is what the corporate state wants. We must recognize that. One is reminded that, at First Manassas, the Americans totally routed the alien Yankees. Had the conflict really been a “Civil” War, in which both sides were contesting for control of the federal government, the Immortal Jackson and the other American commanders would have pursued the fleeing Yankees and seized it, hanged the nation’s first Communist President – an ardent champion of slavery – and restored the Constitution.
Instead, they went home, assuming that they had now proved their point and the enemy would leave them alone. After the alien victory, the Immortal Lee said that had he known at the beginning what they were fighting, had he known what the alien enemy would do, he would have fought on to the last man. He didn’t know soon enough. Today, Americans are fighting the spiritual inheritors of Yankee monsters like Sherman, the Beast of Atlanta, whose invading degenerates raped American women, white and black. ”
Maybe you only think we should refer t the specific area Baldwin wants us to listen to Stang on- the “homosexualists” (re: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin396.htm from September 7, 2007) .
From Stang’s “Attack of the Bull Dykes: Cover Your Axx” ( http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/comments/attack_of_the_bull_dykes_cover_your_axx/ ) :
“A Hillary Clinton presidency would be the ultimate bull dyke triumph. The tattooed womanoids in pants suits would believe, correctly, that they no longer must hide. Rampant lesbianism would be the ultimate expression of feminism, which is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Janet Reno would be baaack! Remember, it all started with woman suffrage. We were promised that with women voting, all the problems men have caused would cease, especially war.
We have now had almost a hundred years of women voting; we have perpetual war and the biggest government in history – perverting the blessed propensity of women to nurture – about to become a totalitarian dictatorship that would dwarf the best Stalin, Hitler and Orwell could do.
Don’t take my word for all this. Here is how Isaiah puts it: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” (3:12)
Limbag and his listeners now are celebrating their latest triumph, in which Operation Chaos has resuscitated the Hillary dykeathon in Pennsylvania. They are playing with fire. They could get burned. Unfortunately, innocent bystanders could get burned too. ”
These comments, examples of the people Baldwin sends readers to for “more detail”- clearly show libertarian intent, right?
June 5th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
It seems Baldwin wants plenty of laws regulating morality and behavior, so long as they are at the state level.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
From what I’ve read, it seems that the Constitution Party wishes to devolve power from the federal level to the state level. I do like this about Baldwin and the CP.
However, the Libertarian Party wishes to return this power to the people. OTOH, the CP, per everything they’ve ever written, wants this power to stay with state government, especially when it comes to matters of personal behavior.
Examples:
The Libertarian Party wishes to end the drug war because it’s an infringement on the rights of Americans. The CP wishes to end the federal drug war because they want a smaller federal government (though they still want federal involvement). They’d continue to keep drugs illegal at the state level. From the party platform: “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.”
The Libertarian Party supports Internet gaming rights because restrictions are infringements on the rights of Americans. The CP wishes to end the federal gaming involvement primarily to stop the feds from forcing Indian gaming on states. They’d push for all gaming to be prohibited at the state level per a whole bunch of documents I’ve posted here.
The Libertarian Party doesn’t support censoring adult pornography. The CP, in this case, supports federal efforts to censor the Internet, as states cannot stop this interstate commerce (which I found troubling when relating it to how they’d likely handle Internet poker). From their platform: “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.”
June 6th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Well it looks like the libertian party was hijacked by the NWO. When are we going to learn freedom can not be bought by philandering. I watched the libertarian convention on C-SPAN a week ago and read the body language of Bob Barr (the Libertarian Nominee). Here’s what I observed: 1. He does not strike me as warm and personal. 2. He looked nervous and out of place. 3. He struck me as having a hidden agenda. When the media approached him whoever he was talking to he clamed up and tried to excuse himself politely. 4. He was looking for and asked where the California Delegation was like he had a secret meeting with them to get him elected. And 5. He has a shady past with the CIA. Even one of the potential nominees ( Mary Schmidt i think her name was) warned openly to not be swayed by the Barr candidacy because of this. She was booed at by the delegation just like Ron Paul was at one of the Republican Debates because he told the truth. And the truth is not what most of the American People want. They want a winner at any cost at the expense of freedom and liberty. I’d rather vote for truth and liberty and lose than to vote for popularity and one who looks like a winner and then lose it all in the end anyway. My conviction is stronger than popularity. Baldwin of the CP is more of the religious right that tries to legislate and pass laws on a federal level onthe issues of morality. It never works to try to control the life of another. That to me is tyranny. God never intended for his man to control the life of his fellowman man. He said take care of the EARTH and replenish and subdue IT.
Laws are a thing for the states to decide. We have forgotten we are a melting pot of many ethnic groups and backgrounds. The Founding Fathers never tried to run anyones life and we should not do so today. What we should do as Ron Paul has said is live our life aright by example and then those who are of a different persuasion might see the value and be influenced. If not then at least we have given the a guide. But we are not to control how another man thinks or lives. Wake up America and hear the call to Liberty, Freedom and Peace. Defend the Homeland as we must and don’t fight everyone elses war.
If something happens to Paul I will not be voting in this election. I don’t know of anyone else who qualifies like he does. He is the only candidate with a consistent record who never wavered on his stance as a public servant and what he believed in. What he said he mean’t and he carried it out to the best of his ability. What more can you ask for? Like someone earlier said ” Ron Paul is Ron Paul” What you see is what you get.
If anyone knows of any candidate that has Pauls record or better I would sure like to know of them. Incase the unthinkable happens. Duane
June 6th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Dr, BaldWIN wasn’t after this vote. Afterall Root told the convention he is getting all 80 million to vote Barr/Root, that’s how they win and can pay these hellboundcutthroathiredguns…
Dr. BaldWIN is going after the 220 million anti-degenerate grumpygreasy gamblers, angryabsentmindedathiest, PREVERTpornopurchasers VOTE!
Also, a question to ponder, WHY did BuBar beat his first two wives ?