Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul

Chuck Baldwin

by Chuck Baldwin

Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.” (See the complete statement)
Obviously, I could not be more delighted and honored to have Dr. Paul’s endorsement. I called him last evening and thanked him personally. And now I want to thank him publicly.

I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties—not to mention the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much support from the Republican Party in his home district.

I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron’s Paul’s message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul’s endorsement is further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, “big box” party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.

Ron Paul’s message is my message; Ron Paul’s fight is my fight.

I want to return America to constitutional government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the federal government accordingly.

My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called “war on drugs” and the so-called “war on terror.” No more warrantless searches and seizures. No more eavesdropping on Americans’ phone calls, or collecting Americans’ emails, or spying on American citizens without court order and oversight. No more stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in the name of “national security.” In addition, I would use every power and authority vested to my office to preserve and protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And, yes, I will immediately restore Posse Comitatus. As President, I want to protect America from Washington, D.C., as much I want to protect it from foreign powers.

I will also take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously, where it states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” This means the day I am sworn in as President of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down! The NAFTA superhighway is dead. The North American Union is dead. I will work to eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. The FTAA is DOA. I will not expend tax dollars for the support of the United Nations.

Furthermore, I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to “repel Invasions.” This means we will secure America’s borders, because the illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion, and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens. I will also aggressively prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegals. And did I mention that my first day in office is Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean’s last day in prison? I will personally open the prison doors and restore to these men their freedom. I will also give them their jobs back (with pay), if they want them. And one more item on this point: my first day of office is also U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s last day on the job.

I also share Ron Paul’s concerns for the way the two major parties have allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist, nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other 130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other nation’s business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.

Furthermore, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is over, when I become President. Because I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, I would never send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a Declaration of War by Congress. In dealing with rogue terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, I will seek letters of Marque and Reprisal from Congress, which would give me the authority to use whatever special and/or private forces are necessary to seek out and destroy those who desire our hurt.

And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will be no man’s slave, neither will I be any man’s master.

I also share Ron Paul’s commitment to the sanctity of life. When I become President, I will use the bully pulpit of the White House to press Congress to pass Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand. On this topic, the GOP is especially hypocritical. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government for six years and did nothing to save the life of a single unborn child. Saving unborn babies from the abortionists’ scalpel is more than rhetoric with me, however.

Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics. Dr. Paul has been predicting the current financial meltdown in this country for years. And when all is done, the current bailout being proposed will do more harm than good. The problem is, America’s leaders have rejected sound money policies for years, and the chickens are coming home to roost. As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will do any of the above. If he were President, Dr. Paul would do it, however, and so would I. Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in inviting all of Dr. Paul’s supporters to help us take the message of constitutional government into the general election on November 4.

Thank you.

91 Responses to “Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul”

  1. Joe Buchman Says:

    As a life-long Libertarian, and as a Libertarian Candidate for the US Congress, I gotta say this is an impressive, well-articulated statement by Mr. Baldwin.

    I’m not sure where the CP stands on IUDs (if life begins at the moment of conception, does an IUD terminate life? do they then intend to punish women who use them as murders? If not, what about the use of a day-after (or week-after, or month-after pill?)) The Sanctity of Life Act as I read it seems to indicate this would be the case.

    Because I do not want a Federal government so large and invasive that it would have the power and ability to actually protect such life—I can imagine constant monitoring and checking of pregnant women, government imposed requirements for proper diet, exercise, vitamins, prohibitions on activities dangerous to the fetus, etc, etc—I unequivocally support a woman’s right to privately terminate in the first trimester.

    I do not support, of course, the use of any public funds for that.

    If the CP would come closer to that as public policy, I might give them a second look.

    I don’t want a smaller Federal government in every other way (as so aptly articulated above), but larger in terms of the power and level of invasion required to protect such early unborn (possible, probable even) life.

    I’m also a bit chilled by:

    “People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith.”

    While I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, I wish there had been some non-Christian exemplars included of those who worship God—Muslim, Jew, Unitarian, Buddhist etc.

    Otherwise it reads to me as only Christians worship God (although I know well, especially living as a non-Mormon here in Utah, that Mormons are not always numbered as Christians by other Christian denominations.

    Joe

  2. Brian Holtz Says:

    Theocracy doesn’t mean outlawing competing faiths or lack thereof. It means imposing the laws of your god(s) on your fellow citizens for no other reason than that they are the laws of your god(s).

    Maybe what Baldwin and/or the Constitution Party need to do is tell us where they stand regarding Divine Command Theory. For references, see http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/euthyphros-is-my-favorite-dilemma.html

  3. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘Theocracy . . . means imposing the laws of your god(s) on your fellow citizens for no other reason than that they are the laws of your god(s).’

    In what dictionary may I find this definition?

  4. Maria Says:

    It is a great endorsement to a campaign that has had no traction whatsoever. They have never even polled 1% in any poll thus far and maybe this will help, even if does come from a Republican. However, the Christian right is now behind McCain because of VP selection Sarah Palin.

    Personally I cannot vote for Pastor Baldwin for President as I don’t see that being a Pastor is enough qualification for being president and I do not acknowledge the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator.
    And I don’t believe we must restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations like the Constitution Party calls for.

    I don’t believe in mixing religion with politics/government. It is a dangerous Concoction. When you do that you end up like Iran.
    This is why this country is great and different from all others because we do not do that. Organized Religion has caused more harm than good and is responsible for most wars in history

    Even if you take Pastor Baldwin at his own words as consolation, he makes no mention of Jews and Muslims which is very telling as these two great religions do not accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and savior. And in America you have 6 million Jews and about 9 million muslims. So not to mention these two faiths is pretty weird, pretty obvious in purpose of omitting. Pastor Baldwin and any politician carefully crafts any statement and this is simply not “ooops I forgot to mention” case. He leaves it out on purpose.

    In addition the Libertarian Party has the same basic principles to those of the Constittution Party except it takes a more secular approach. The Libertarians came first by the way.

    Warren Buffet once said “first comes the innovators, then the immitators, then come the idiots”

    I will be most definetly casting a vote for The Libertarian Party and Bob Barr.

    To the supporters of the Libertarian Party I ask you stay active in these final days, send emails opposing the bailout and inclusion into the debates.
    We are on at least 46 states which is exciting and should reach 1 million dollars raised by late tonight if we all ask for donations and donate ourselves one more time.

    Let Freedom grow my friends, let’s do this.

  5. David in Akron Says:

    As great as most of Ron Paul’s views were, he either doesn’t know what Party he belongs to, or doesn’t care. He runs for president as a Libertarian, then as a Republican, and then endorses the CP.

    I was a Ron Paul supporter, and even canvassed for him, but I’m disappointed in this endorsement.

    Barr changed parties, and even I have…but shouldn’t you stick with a viewpoint for a little while?

  6. Brian Holtz Says:

    theocracy n. a form of government in which a god or gods are acknowledged as the ultimate authority

    theocracy n. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler

    “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law [...] The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. [...] We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

  7. Hayes Says:

    “theocracy n. a form of government in which a god or gods are acknowledged as the ultimate authority”

    By this definition, the USSR was also a theocracy, with secular humanism as its religion, man as god.

    We have to define what a “god” is. It is easy for one to rail against the Judeo-Christian God, but not be consistant in one’s reasoning.

  8. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    If i was Pastor baldwin’s campaign advisor I would tell him not to cross his arms for every picture. Everyone knows that crossing your arms means you are hiding something.

  9. Joe Buchman Says:

    I’ll almost certainly be for Barr as well, but, given Dr. Paul’s endorsement, I, like others in the LP are doing from what I hear, am taking a closer look at Mr. Baldwin.

    The question as I see it is:

    To what degree is it fair to distinguish the candidate’s positions/likely paradigms for governing from the platform?

    Certainly major party candidates have run away from their platforms over the years, their pre-election rhetoric notwithstanding.

    Clearly Mr. Barr is not as aligned with the LP Platform as many in the party would like (nor is the platform itself as clearly libertarian as I would like).

    So when looking at Mr. Baldwin’s candidacy, and the possibility of voting for him, especially given his career as a pastor, remote as it may be, I’m looking to see where he, like other candidates, may not agree with, or,if elected, be likely to impose that platform.

    And, I’m in several respects more impressed with his statement above, and Dr. Paul’s endorsement, than, sadly, what I’ve seen from the Barr campaign so for.

    But to repeat, while I’m curious enough to look into Mr. Baldwin and the CP a bit more closely, and to ask a few questions here, odds remain (90 %+ right now), I’ll be voting for the LP candidate.

    Joe

  10. Dan Says:

    While I’m not in agreement with everything in the CP platform [i.e. they support a fed. marriage amendment which I think should be left as a local matter], I see he is the closest candidate to the positions of Ron Paul-except Baldwin doesn’t support legalization of drugs- but he does want to make drug enforcement more of a state responsibility than a federal one. And they share strong opposition to abortion and illegal immigration. It’s too bad that the CP and the LP cannot work together on the issues they agree on. There is just too much anti-christian sentiment in the LP for substantial cooperation to happen at this time.

  11. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    Maria says she can’t support Chuck Baldwin because he hasn’t the EXPERIENCE? WHAT Be advised…..our ‘founding fathers’ did not have the so-called EXPERIENCE either. They were merely ‘farmers, attorney’s, silversmiths, soldiers, storekeepers, printers, businessmen & women, bakers, blaksmiths, teamsters,and yes some ‘pastors’.
    They were COMMON FOLKS with a desire to be FREE. They were honest, hard-working people with the specific intent to be free. They were people with INTEGRITY.
    They had a CAUSE. They stuck with that cause despite the odds against them. These ‘founders’ and countrymen & women were shoulder to shoulder , that forged a new nation, a new republic.
    THEY did not need EXPERIENCE, just a good honest heart, honor and determination. THAT is what CHUCK BALDWIN, DARRELL CASTLE, and others in the cause…the movement…..the Constitution party…Ron Pauler’s…Campaign for Liberty….’the new revolution’....is ALL ABOUT.

    So if I have to choose between a person with EXPERIENCE verses a person that has INTEGRITY, and the DESIRE, to give our nation real LIBERTY….I guess you can see WHO I will pick!
    That CFR-evil globalist Henry Kissinger has a lot of FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE I am told! Guess WHO he has been grooming lately?
    Sahra Palin! I saw a photo of HIM and HER giving each other a bear hug.
    Palin just sold her soul to Henry and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). How come I am not shocked?! republicans are real good at selling their soul. -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF

    Nat.Chrm. NVC/CP…www.nvets.org

  12. Bruce Knight Says:

    Many years ago, when I turned 18, I joined the LP. I spent my college years writing papers in defense of Libertarianism, voted for LP candidates, distributed literature and even ran as an LP candidate for local office. Sometime in the early 1990’s this changed.

    All during my time with the LP I was concerned by two things: One was the sense that many in the party were there because it gave them some sort of philosophical cover for their particular “fetishes” and fringe social practices/beliefs. The other was the overt hostility of the “socially tolerant” to any mention of Christianity. I never saw such directed at other faiths (Judaism, Wiccan, etc). In the end, this bigorty drove me from the LP.

    Lately I have toyed with the idea of voting for Bob Barr (have already donated $) and have been routinely reading the posts on TPW and Ballot Access News. Sadly, the hatred and paranoia of many of the posters toward Christianity has convinced me that little has changed within the LP.

    So I suppose I ought to say “thank you” to those posters who have, in a very real sense, helped me make my decision. While not perfect – no one and no party is – I’ll vote for Chuck Baldwin and the CP.

  13. Brian Holtz Says:

    Hayes, if not believing in god(s) is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. A god is a supernatural person, usually considered immortal, that demands or deserves human worship or reverence and that wields supernatural influence over human affairs. (If you want definitions for any of these terms, see my book at http://humanknowledge.net.)

    Joe, both Barr and Baldwin publicly embrace the platform of their party. I don’t think I’ve heard Barr contradict the LP platform yet. The closest he comes is when he says he would leave drugs and marriage to the states, and that he would use the U.S. military to protect American lives and property abroad.

    Neither Barr nor Baldwin will be elected, and neither could impose their platform if they were. I don’t vote for a third-party candidate because of what he will do in office. Nor do I vote against a third-party candidate because of his unrepentant record as a Moral Majority leader, or because of his somewhat-repentant record as a social conservative. I vote for a third-party candidate because I want to support the message of his party.

    Dan, by far the biggest difference between Paul and Baldwin is on the freedom of Americans to buy foreign products and to sell assets to foreigners. Foreign trade is one quarter of America’s GDP, and Baldwin’s antiquated protectionist policies would plunge America into another Great Depression. His trade policy alone disqualifies him from the support of anyone who understands economics. He also disagrees sharply with Paul on outlawing drugs, obscenity, and probably other vices like gambling and prostitution. The bottom line is that Baldwin and the CP want to legislate personal morality, but Paul and the LP do not.

    The LP is not anti-Christian. We’re just anti-theocracy. There are many devout Christians in the LP. There are also many of us who disagree sharply with the historical claims of Christianity, but we will defend with our lives the freedom of Christians to preach that our infidelity makes us deserve eternal damnation.

  14. JT Says:

    Brian Holtz: “Hayes, if not believing in god(s) is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

    Haha! I like that, Brian. Good way to make a point that should be obvious, but isn’t to some people.

  15. Hayes Says:

    “Hayes, if not believing in god(s) is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

    Actually using your analogy, you simply have a differnet hobby or if you claim to have no hobbies, the lack of hobbies is your hobby. Replacing a god with man is a form of religion. In fact, atheism is the most arrogant stance to take because it purports to have knowledge of the infinite.

  16. Flash Says:

    “Party he belongs to, or doesn’t care. He runs for president as a Libertarian, then as a Republican, and then endorses the CP.

    I was a Ron Paul supporter, and even canvassed for him, but I’m disappointed in this endorsement.

    Barr changed parties, and even I have…but shouldn’t you stick with a viewpoint for a little while?”

    Its actually just the opposite. He doesn’t play party politics which is what you meant. You can’t be principled and endorse people just because they’re in your party. My problem with Ron Paul is that he refuses to endorse Democrats that represent his views like Bob Conley.

  17. GREEN DAD Says:

    The Libertarian Party is doing a fine job this election and I for one will help in growing it.

  18. Brian Doran Says:

    When I read Ron Paul’s statement it almost sounds like:

    ‘I wanted to remain neutral but this other guy pissed me off so much, I am going to go ahead and endorse you Chuck’

    I mean the timing and the circumstances and the wording itself do not sound like a true ringing endorsment. It was just a week or two ago that he was wanting to stand up with everyone.

    Also it amazes me that guys like Huckabee and Dobson (who are also pastors) do not choose Baldwin over McCain. I guess the Republican party could shoot their dogs and the far religious right will always do what it says.

    There is only one third paty that I know that is more fractured than the Libertarians and that is the Constitution Party.

  19. Registered Republican Says:

    One endoresmnet from one Republican will not change my vote to Pastor Baldwin. I hope they do shave some Christian right votes which is what the Constitution Party is appealing to. My vote remains with The Libertarian Party.

  20. Ferenc Says:

    Can I say again.
    We must keep our eyes on the congress and senate. We must urge everybody to VOTE for third or independent candidates. To early for the presidency with out congressional support.

    GOD BLESS
    To all of those anty Christian libertarians. Tell me one nation where those bad christians try to force their religion on others. Just one please. If you can’t, then SHUT UP your anty Christian stupedity.

  21. Bill Lussenheide Says:

    Experience?

    To the best of my knowledge, not ONE of the candidates for President has any experience being a “President”.

    To say that a Congressman or even a Senator gets “experience” for being a President, is a big leap too. Just watch C-Span sometime and see the mundane goings on of the legislature.

    In the end, a good President develops his leadership in the crucible of life. We have had Presidents who were Generals in the military. These have been good and bad. We have had a minister for President in James Garfield. We have had a movie star, farmers, and folks who were nothing more than blue bloods who had famous fathers.

    In the end, it is about Character, Integrity and Faith.

    Chuck Baldwin indeed has those intrinsic desirable traits, and the honesty to tell America the hard things, not just those things that are “smooth words” to tingle ears.

  22. Jake Says:

    @Ferenc

    “stupedity” is spelled stupidity.

    Guys, lets give credit where credit is due, Baldwin successfully, uhm, didn’t ask for Ron Paul’s help and got it.

    Only in Ron Paul’s world, do you wait until the campaign is almost over, endorse a field of candidates. Declare your idea is 100% valid, but then in the very same diatribe, neverthless endorse one of the candidates.

    I don’t know how long this endorsement is going to last, but congratulations to Baldwin in the meantime.

  23. Brian Holtz Says:

    Oh boy, here we go. Hayes, atheism does not “purport to have knowledge of the infinite”. If you want to know what atheism purports, visit http://infidels.org. Some of my papers on atheism are posted there, and I invite you to read and respond to them.

    Atheism does not “replace god with a man”. Instead, atheism denies that morality comes from unquestionable precepts found in sacred scrolls, whether written by gods or men. The relevant difference between atheism and theism is that one side settles arguments with “X said so”, where X is God. There is no “man” or group of men or any other X whose arbitrary whims can settle a moral question for atheists the way that the whims of God can settle moral questions for theists.

    Again, if you want to learn about the philosophy of axiology (i.e. the origin and grounding of values), I give references at http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/euthyphros-is-my-favorite-dilemma.html.

  24. Ferenc Says:

    Jake
    Thank you.

  25. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Theocracy doesn’t mean outlawing competing faiths or lack thereof. It means imposing the laws of your god(s) on your fellow citizens for no other reason than that they are the laws of your god(s).”

    Response : Thou shalt not kill. Some people will claim that the application of this law to society and culture is ” imposing the laws of your God on your fellow citizens.” Sigh. ALL laws have a religious philosophical basis. Those who complain about the ” imposition ” of Christian laws ( which also protect them ) simply want to replace Christianity with their own religion of secular humanism.

  26. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” I don’t believe in mixing religion with politics/government. It is a dangerous Concoction.

    Response : It is IMPOSSIBLE to NOT mix ” religion with politics/government. ALL people are religious. People run government. Therefore religion and government will ALWAYS mix. NO EXCEPTIONS. The writer is simply yet another who desires to replace Christianity with their own religion of secular humanism.

  27. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Foreign trade is one quarter of America’s GDP, and Baldwin’s antiquated protectionist policies would plunge America into another Great Depression.”

    Response – ” Antiquated protectionist policies,” i.e.; tariffs; are what made our country the greatest industrial power in the world. Tariffs protected our industry, and hence citizens, from economic warfare. The Plantation Masters of the nation have today eliminated tariffs and hence surrendered our nation to the economic warfare known as ” globalization.” The result is the crushing of our middle class and the collapse of our industrial capacity with the continuous and growing trade deficits which come from such foolishness. We have changed from being a capital goods production economy to a casino speculative economy. That is why we now have discussions for multi-billion dollar bailout(s). The CP is the leader in calling for protection of our domestic industry, our workers, and the restoration of our economy.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  28. Cody Quirk Says:

    theocracy n. a form of government in which a god or gods are acknowledged as the ultimate authority

    theocracy n. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler

    = Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Or the end part of the US Constitution with the words “in the Year of our Lord.’?

    What about the tradition of a politician taking the Oath of Office with his hand on the bible?

    I guess the US Government was founded as a Theocracy then.

    BTW, the governments of the USSR and China can be considered theocratic in a philosphical manner; because of the leader, or even the governing political force of the nation is considered, revered and worshiped as a God, or Deity.

  29. John Lowell Says:

    Brian Holtz,

    “The LP is not anti-Christian.”

    Sure, Brian. You just keep believing that, son.

    Although it didn’t start that way, increasingly, libertarianism and the Libertarian Party have become vehicles for a veritable sociopathology writ large, its adherents squads of relativist adult children who seem never successfully to have resolved questions concerning Mom, Dad, and the Church. The mere existence of religion and the assertions it makes exert an intolerable counterweight to the narcissistic visions of all too many of those caught up in this arrested development and lead to explosions of hatred that frequently take on an almost rabid character. We’re no strangers to these outbursts here, of course, Brian, know them for what they are, and give them the name they deserve: Bigotry. What’s sad is that this mass sociopathology parades about here and elsewhere in the uniform of reason not unlike Bolshevism once did when its anti-Christian expressions went unresisted. If that’s the future of libertarianism – and it would seem to be – its a perverse future indeed, yet no correctives would seem to be in place. No, to the contrary, the cancer simply continues to metastasize. Don’t be surprized one day to see libertarians wearing brown shirts. When it comes to Christian people, they already are, largely.

  30. Lojiko Says:

    It’s almost like RP is trying to destroy the Liberty movement.

    I pulled hard for Ron Paul, expecting him to take this fight straight to the White House and really shake up the political system, and what does he do? He quits and goes back to his district. This was the last chance RP will have in his life to cause a serious change in American politics and this is how he’s squandered it.

    Tremendously disappointing to say the least.

  31. John Lowell Says:

    Lojiko,

    Couldn’t agree more, Lojiko, although his “four principles” news conference and the endorsement of Baldwin turn a new page. Felt exactly as you did when he wussed out on an independent run. That was contemptible in my view. I’d never really quite trust him again.

  32. Jake Says:

    Since so much of this discussion is about Christianity and politics, let me say that I’m a Libertarian, and a Christian. And there has never been any hostility towards me. The Libertarian party is a very tolerant group, and all religions are allowed.

    The only way I can see someone can conclude that the LP is anti-religious, is if you somehow define tolerance as an affront to religion. I don’t think most people would agree with that, but I think thats the general gist of it.

    Personally I’m just glad that true feelings are finally out in the open. The CP is quasi-religious. The LP is about the freedom philosophy. Philosophies are heady stuff, some of the concepts are so stratospheric, they could cause a nosebleed. It’s not for everyone. But for who its for, they should vote that way. Moral Majority types, probably more at home in the CP.

    I just cannot get over Chuck’s acceptance though. He boldy never attempted to get the endorsement. He showed true grit by doing nothing.
    This is some kind of young person’s ‘emo’ world. In my world, people with strong convictions are allowed to pursue their passions. I’m more comfortable with Bob Barr than Chuck Baldwin, thats for sure. Contrary to the idea that the LP compromised its principles, he’s been surprisingly uncompromising. He both saw the threat that Ron Paul posed, and stood firm against it…and he’s a relative newcomer to the party. He’s done the party a great service.

  33. AnthonyD Says:

    Awesome! The kook Paul endorsed the christofacsist Baldwin Lets round up the menfolk and git dem fairies

  34. John Galt Jr. Says:

    Jake,

    I could not agree more. As a Lazy Atheist, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you (or anyone) if someone or some entity prevented you from practicing your religion, or my lack of religion.

  35. Cody Quirk Says:

    The LP is about the freedom philosophy.

    = Like the freedom to bash Christianity over and over again on Third Party Watch?

    BTW, Chuck got Ron’s endorsement not only because Bob snubbed Ron, but also because Chuck was more then willing to speak at Ron’s rallies and meetings and praised him more then once.

    I also believe Ron isn’t like the athiestic crowd here that thinks talking about Christian values in government is automatically Theocracy.

  36. Cody Quirk Says:

    BTW, as a Christian, I will never associate with a party that has members and leaders that bash my faith, or even has members that question the laws against Child Pornography.

  37. John Lowell Says:

    Cody,

    The closer one gets to the reality of libertarianism – to the people that espouse it – the more one realizes that it is no more or less than a rationale for the most egregious self-service. Looking for a way to rationalize sociopathological behavior? Identify yourself as a libertarian.

  38. Brian Holtz Says:

    Don, murder is illegal because it’s universally held to be a violation of natural law. Murder is not illegal merely because Moses read it in a tablet on Mt. Sinai. You’ll notice that several other items in the Ten Commandments are not illegal—at least until the Constitution Party “restores American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations”. You can mutter “secular humanism is a religion” all you want, and I’ll keep repeating: one side settles arguments with “X said so”, where X is some god or some sacred text. There is no X whose arbitrary whims can settle a moral question for atheists the way that the whims of God can settle moral questions for theists. Please educate yourself by reading about Divine Command Theory.

    I’ll no more debate the virtue of protectionism than I’ll debate the flatness of the Earth. You and the CP/AIP are welcome to votes of anyone reading this who doesn’t agree with Ron Paul and me about the merits of free trade.

    Yes, Cody, I’ve read the DoI. I personally adapted some of its language into the LP Platform this year—plank 3.7. The DoI never invokes the Bible or even “scripture” the way the CP Platform does. The DoI talks about “self-evident truths” rather than revealed truths. It invokes “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—not the laws of Moses and of Moses’s god. Jefferson would have never agreed with the CP Platform to “affirm the importance of Biblical scripture” when deciding e.g. that “the law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” Sorry, but America’s founding documents simply do not ever invoke the scriptural revelations of Christianity—as much as you might wish otherwise.

    Invoking the “year of our Lord” dating system to establish America as a theocracy is just laughable. The Bible is of course not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, which instead explicitly prescribe “oath or affirmation” in each of the four instances they discuss such things.

    Sorry, but no Communist regime (except perhaps North Korea) has ascribed supernatural properties to its leaders or their guiding texts. Your invocation of such regimes highlights an interesting irony. If I believed that the Bible were the revealed inerrant word of an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent being, I would embrace the charge of uniquely advocating political rule according to that text’s divine wisdom. I surely wouldn’t be so embarrassed by the charge of “theocracy” that I would say theocracy is a sin that everyone is guilty of. I would instead say that my brand of theocracy is the only authentic one—sort of like what the CP Platform does when it identifies “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States”.

    Diagnosing the CP as theocratic is not at all the same thing as “bashing Christianity”. But thank you for confirming that your politics and your religion are so intertwined that you cannot mentally distinguish disagreement with one from disagreement with the other. That’s a deliciously subtle piece of irony.

    “Talking about Christian values in government” is not theocracy until you start saying (as the CP does) that “scripture” should shape the government’s laws. Maybe you need an Eleventh Commandment: thou shalt not use strawmen to misrepresent thy neighbor’s opinions.

    As for condemning the entire LP because of the views of a few members, well, let the political party that is without kooky members cast the first stone. If you want to change the subject from comparing party platforms, at least have the intellectual courage to admit it.

    John Lowell, you just broke my irony meter with your charge of “bigotry” against Libertarians whom you proceed to vilify with a litany of vicious generalizations. You clearly have some issues you need to work through. I hope your walk with your Lord eventually leads you to a more charitable place.

  39. JT Says:

    What an intelligent, well-written smackdown, Holtz. Nicely done.

  40. John Lowell Says:

    Brian Holtz,

    “John Lowell, you just broke my irony meter with your charge of “bigotry” against Libertarians whom you proceed to vilify with a litany of vicious generalizations. You clearly have some issues you need to work through. I hope your walk with your Lord eventually leads you to a more charitable place.”

    Oh, Brian, to tell the truth is always charitable, even when its the truth about libertarians. Why, it would be charitable even if it were to tell the truth about you. Imagine that, Brian, someone telling the truth about you.

    Just a little hint, son. You need to drop the term “theist” when speaking of Christians. Christians aren’t theists, we are trinitarians and that you’re not aware of that difference is striking given all the above bravado about your own convictions. Until you grasp that very critical distinction, just about any of your terribly presumptous claims to a knowledge of the faith and to its content are just so much garbage. God knows, they are likely to be garbage apart from any such claims. Is that charitable enough for you?

  41. Brian Holtz Says:

    theism n. belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods

    theism n. belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

    theism n. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world

    theism n. in theology and philosophy, the belief in a personal God. It is opposed to atheism and agnosticism and is to be distinguished from pantheism and deism (see deists). Unlike pantheists, theists do not hold God to be identical to the universe. Like deists, they believe that God created the universe and transcends it; unlike the deists, they hold that God involves himself in human affairs.

    “Just a little hint, son.” If you want to debate religion with me, you should first check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/brian_holtz/ and http://holtz.org/Writings.html#Atheism.

    Then bring your A game. You’ll need it.

  42. Travis Maddox Says:

    Chuck Baldwin on Atheistic & Religous Freedoms

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZB8SlPnTE

  43. John Lowell Says:

    Brian Holtz,

    “If you want to debate religion with me, you should first check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/brian_holtz/ and http://holtz.org/Writings.html#Atheism.

    Then bring your A game. You’ll need it.”

    What you may or may not have written about atheism isn’ t of the slightest interest to me, Brian. I’d be bored with it. I was rather more concerned with your competence when it came to Christianity about which you purport to speak intelligently. Its that point that caught my eye. And what’s clear from the outset is that you have no competence whatsoever when it comes to understanding the Christian faith or you wouldn’t make the naive and utterly uninformed remark that Chistianity were “theistic”. No, I don’t think we’ll need to familiarize ourselves with the writing at your site, I think we can engage you right here and under present circumstances. And, please, spare us the public expressions of self-assurance, they’re more than a little transparent.

  44. ken Says:

    Read Viguerie’s and Baldwin’s early stuff at the library. Fascinating and very germane to all this.

  45. Clark Says:

    ...what a hoot!...lowell and holtz..tete-a tete..

    ...in one corner, lowell, who might agonize over recalling what he had for lunch tuesday..but never-the-less remains cock-sure about what happened as to ‘the christ’ some ~19.5 centuries before his birth!..

    ...and then there’s holtz..proud of his ?apparently considerable ‘economic knowledge’..

    ...lol!

    FOR ONE OF MANY THINGS, HOLTZ, your apparent republicrat hero, barf, is SHILLING FOR SOMETHING KNOWN AS “THE FAIR TAX” ...i guess to finance his fucking myopic republicrat ‘vision’ (hallucination) for america.

    ..HOLTZ and ANY/ALL other economic wizards here, I ASSERT that an honest understanding of today’s ‘money’ would lead to the conclusion that there really is no need to ‘tax’ us ‘DIRECTLY’...i.e. “income taxation,” ‘sales taxation,’ etc….PERIOD…..........

    ...forcing countless wasted hours, trees, more mailmen etc. ad goddamned nauseam, as we are forced/coerced to provide minions of Republicrat monetary ignoramusses, bean-counter$, etc. with our ‘economic diarie$’ so as to administer stooooooooooooooooooooopid fucking ‘income tax,’ ‘national sales tax’ etc. DIRECT TAXATION schemes…

    ..I ASSERT ‘the government’ could surely create all ‘the money’ they need out of thin air—just like the $hady ‘commercial bank$ters’-CHARTERED/CREATED/PROTECTED BY/ETC. “GOVERNMENT”-do today!—and leave the rest of us alone and happier!!..thus ‘taxing’ us all ‘INDIRECTLY’..and, at least, MUCH more fairly and efficiently THAN THE WAY YOU REPUBLICRAT MUNCHKIN$ DO “IT” TODAY!!..

    ..and when some poor pitiful goddamned republicrat fool, who doesn’t even know what ‘a dollar’ is, parrots to me, ‘That would be inflationary, Clark’..i ask the poor pitiful goddamned republicrat fool, ‘why is ‘my’ way of ‘taxing’ (indirectly) any more ‘inflationary’ than ‘taxing people/businesses/etc. (directly) who then pass that ‘expense,’ etc. on to the customer ‘hidden’ in the prices of their ‘products!’...A VERY BAD WAY TO OPERATE FOR THOSE EVEN REMOTELY CONCERNED WITH ‘TRAN$PARENCY IN GOVERNMENT,’ ETC..

    ...face it, holtz, for all your blowholery—and the rest of you economic geniuses too—about ‘the economy’..you haven’t an honest clue as to the origin, nature, etc., of the mo$t ubiquitou$ economic commodity…those ‘dollars’ about which you work your holes, around which you organize your lives, etc. ad nau$eam..

    ...just the facts, holtz!..

    ...btw, i’m concerned that someone so fundamentally ignorant about $omething $o important is jacking around with ‘party platforms’.. HEAL THYSELVES, economic witch doctors!

    ...but have a good day!..

  46. Stefan Says:

    Lojiko: how can Ron Paul destroy the Liberty movement, when he relived it the past 2 years and fought his whole career for it?
    He has been saying since the beginning it is not about himself, but about the message. If he would have run as an Indy (he cannot really run under the LP or CP platforms, as his platform is not the same as theirs, and they do not have 50 state ballot access), he would not have been able to run in 4,5 states (sore-loser rules), do you really think he would have a chance to win, with only a little media access and then constantly asked the “spoiler” question, instead of about the real issues?
    Yes, he could have beaten Ross Perot’s 19% record, but ending third or even second would still have meant he would have been political POWERLESS after November. A revolution cannot be achieved in one cycle, but are long term projects. Obviously one does not have 16 years time, but the first fruits of the revolution can already been seen in November if some Ron Paul type candidates are elected and in 2010 there could be a real take-over in congress and senate.
    The president has a lot of power, but ultimately not so much. If Paul would have run, the loser party between Obama and McCain would have blamed Paul, instead of themselves. Paul has thought well over strategy and has made the right decision. He could be elected house speaker in two years. The Ron Paul movement needs more time for the movement to really catch fire. With the campaign for liberty and prominence of Paul with the economic situation, it seems as if Paul get a lot of momentum now. If the November would have started a few months earlier, Paul could well have won the nomination, some say, but it was always going to be very tough. If Kerry had won and continued the war, his policy would have been roughly the same as Bush, Paul would have been the GOP candidate, and the GOP an anti-war party. Do not worry, it is possible that this may happen in the next few year and years if Obama wins, and continue the war in Afghanistan etc. Leadership figures have been identified now, like Gary Johnson.

  47. Stefan Says:

    Cody: I think you are quite right. In his recent interview, it is clear that Paul is also not 100% at ease with the platforms of the LP (and CP). The LP does not have a non-Keynesian economic platform, like the Rothbardians had, and they were also treated badly by the LP in the past. Solution is that you get get a new party, with a pro-life, pro-free market, non-interventionist, federal-principles, limited govt. platform and that can include most of the CP and LP voters, with a name like Independence Party. The radicals in the LP and CP can stay within their parties and die eventually.

  48. Brian Holtz Says:

    John, thanks for ignoring both my writings on Christianity and my multiple citations of ‘theism’ definitions above. If you don’t want to read e.g. http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html then let me give you an excerpt:

    ) The title of ‘God’ is never reliably applied to Jesus anywhere in the New Testament. (In many translations of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the description “God and Saviour” is seemingly applied to Jesus, but the scholarly consensus regards these two letters as late and pseudoepigraphic.) Acts quotes [2:22, 2:36, 3:13, 10:38, 17:31] Peter and Paul describing Jesus in terms of a man appointed to an office, but never calling him God. The gospel authors never explicitly claim Jesus to be God, and the closest they come is the vague language of Jn 1: “the Word was God” and “became flesh”. John quotes Thomas exclaiming [Jn 20] “my Lord and my God”, but immediately states [20:31] as a creed merely “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. The “mystery” of Jesus’ nature was hardly clarified by the Apostles [e.g. Phil 2:6, Rom 1:4, Col 1:15, Col 2:9], whose epistles never claim Jesus has any kind of identity with God. (Christian scribes tried to change that; cf. the differing manuscripts for Rom 9:5, Acts 20:28, and 1 Tim 3:16.) Even the alleged angelic annunciation of Jesus to his parents ommitted [Lk 1:32, Mt 1:20, Mt 2:13, Mt 2:20] the claim that Jesus was Yahweh incarnate.
    Thus, just as Jesus failed to leave clear teachings about salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet, he also did not effect a competent revelation of who precisely he was. Depending on e.g. various 4th-century Roman emperors, there waxed and waned such christological heresies as Ebionism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Marcionism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism. Thus Christianity for centuries could not even agree on the most basic question of who Jesus was. (

  49. Brian Holtz Says:

    Clark, here is Bob Barr on tax policy. Feel free to argue against his actual positions, rather than arguing against the voices in your head:

    BB) Tax reform is desperately needed in the United States; but before we can reform the tax code, we must sharply reduce the tax burden on Americans. Meaningful tax reform begins with reining in government spending. Second, we need a tax code that makes taxation fairer and simpler for all citizens.
    There are several alternative tax reform strategies. One would be to create a flat income tax, while cutting or eliminating many other levies, such as the estate tax (or “death tax”) and capital gains tax. Another option would be to replace the income tax and payroll taxes with a consumption tax, such as the Fair Tax; but prior to which it would be essential to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows government to tax the earnings of all hard-working Americans. Initiating a consumption tax while leaving the power to tax income in place inevitably would result in having an income tax on top of a consumption tax.

    There may even be good alternatives for tax reform that have not yet been proposed. All of these ideas are better than the present system, and must be debated to determine which would best protect liberty and promote prosperity. (BB

    And here is the tax reform that I think Barr should support, called the Green Tax Shift: http://knowinghumans.net/2008/01/tax-bads-and-untax-goods-with-green-tax.html

  50. Jeremy Bauserman Says:

    A well written article by Chuck. Had Giuliani been the GOP nominee, Baldwin may have gotten my vote. However, McCain is my choice for President.

  51. Marshall Says:

    First off—Congrats to Baldwin for getting Dr. Paul’s endorsement. I’m a long-time, card-carrying Libertarian, but I do want to congratulate Baldwin and the CP.

    A little bit of perspective though:
    the google news search results that IPR likes to always roll out when it makes Barr looks bad (which I think they’ve done two or three times… I guess on the days when there was a dip in Barr’s coverage) is a pretty good indicator of media interest and buzz. The day after Paul’s endorsement, Baldwin went to a high of about 1800 hits from a level of a few hundred for most of the last couple of months. That number dropped back down to about 1400 yesterday although it has spiked up again to about 1600. Compare that to Barr who has been consistently over 3000 for the last several weeks and you see that Baldwin just will not get the coverage that Barr and Nader will. And rightfully so—at ballot-access.org you can see that while Baldwin is laying claim to 37 ballots (vs. Nader and Barr’s 46), in a good number of those states Baldwin is a write-in however. I know from experience that it’s hard to get hardly any votes in that situation.

    I believe Dr. Paul would have been better served to have just gone w/ his “third-party support coalition”. With this recent turn of events, it’s seems like its all about ego and sour grapes. Although, who really knows?

    But like others have said—any vote not going to the Republicrats is a good thing. So I say—Go Baldwin, Nader, McKinney, Keyes, and Dr. Paul (in LA and MO). And of course—Go Barr!

    Clark!
    methinks it’s So good to hear from your crazy a$$ again! I thought maybe your release program from the sanitorium got revoked. Still caught up on the “dollar” thing…I remember when I was there….Yeah that whole Volcker story is pretty cool…I remember reading that a few years ago. What about the Credit River decision…have you come across that one yet? Hey buddy—you’re onto something…you’ve got your finger on it—keep it up.

    And, oh yeah, I almost forgot. Per your request from a while back.
    From BobBarr2008.com

    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/monetary-policy/

    The Federal Reserve is a secretive and unaccountable organization which dominates monetary policy, regulates financial institutions, and increasingly intervenes in economic markets. Congress must insist on accountability and transparency in the Federal Reserve’s operation, while reconsidering the Fed’s almost total control over the money supply. We should begin a debate over more far-reaching policy changes, including eliminating the federal government’s control over the money supply, thereby leaving monetary policy under the control of the market rather than of politics.

    ###

    Barr also has said in interviews that the Fed is unconstitutional and should probably be scrapped.

  52. Impeach Bush Says:

    Baldwin is a fraud!

  53. Jonathan Says:

    This article I wrote because as I read all your posts.

    Please read and give a head up so we can unite

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html

  54. Brian Holtz Says:

    Jonathan, my priority isn’t “challenging the establishment”; my priority is advocating liberty and challenging all who oppose it. Conservative parties like the GOP and the CP oppose personal liberty, so I challenge them. Liberal parties like the Democrats and Greens oppose economic liberty, so I challenge them too. There is only one party that consistently advocates both personal and economic liberty, and that’s the party I support. I highlight the distinctions beween the CP and the LP only so that Ron Paul supporters will be fully informed about what liberties they will be counted as opposing if they follow Paul’s advice and vote CP.

    I can’t agree that it’s a “smear” to point out what liberties the CP opposes. If you know of a more gentle way to describe the LP-CP differences, then please demonstrate it. And if instead you think the LP-CP differences are not to be discussed, then please admit that’s what you’re saying.

  55. Impeach Bush Says:

    Very well said Brian, I completely agree. Since when has advocating liberty and challinging the statist parties for lack of support for liberty considered “challenging the establishment”??? If these are the views you hold Johnathan, then you are no better than a corporate democrat or republican.

  56. Allen Says:

    Baldwin must also agree on Paul’s stance on legalized drugs.

  57. Brian Holtz Says:

    If Jonathan thinks that working with leftists and rightists (e.g. on Paul’s 4 issues) is the best way to advance liberty, more power to him. I personally don’t see how it helps the cause of liberty much to promote the generic idea of third parties, who say that all the government really needs is a better kind of liberal or a better kind of conservative. However, I don’t disparage liberty-lovers for deciding to work within the GOP (like Ron Paul and the RLC) or the DP (like the DFC) or the C4L. Where I draw the line is when liberty-lovers dismiss the LP and its nominee as not sincerely working for liberty, just because we don’t follow the strategy of promoting generic protest voting instead of voting directly for liberty.

    I don’t think the newspapers on Nov 5 are going to add up all the third-party votes and say “see how many people want more economic liberty and more personal liberty?” Instead, they’re going to say that the Nader and McKinney voters want more socialism, and that the Baldwin voters want to outlaw abortion and gay marriage and free trade. I would love for Ron Paul’s press conference to magically claim all third-party votes as votes for his 4-point agenda, but I don’t think the political world is going to read the electoral returns that way. We’ll find out on Nov. 5.

  58. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yes, Cody, I’ve read the DoI. I personally adapted some of its language into the LP Platform this year—plank 3.7. The DoI never invokes the Bible or even “scripture” the way the CP Platform does.

    = It’s invoking God and religious themes that would fit your definition of theocratic.

    Invoking the “year of our Lord” dating system to establish America as a theocracy is just laughable.

    =But which “Lord” is it referring to?

    The Bible is of course not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, which instead explicitly prescribe “oath or affirmation” in each of the four instances they discuss such things.

    =Yet the Bible is used to swear in politicians, While the founders were not dogmatic in their religious views, they were very supportive of religious expression in government.

    Sorry, but no Communist regime (except perhaps North Korea) has ascribed supernatural properties to its leaders or their guiding texts.

    =Yet they are seen as the perfect messiah of their nation that can do no wrong. Especially in North Korea, they have pictures of Kim Jong LL in every household, one can even be thrown in prison if he/she lays down on the ground in front of a Kim Jong LL statue.
    That is exactely the same behavior of some the the radical elements in some religions, including Islam.

    I surely wouldn’t be so embarrassed by the charge of “theocracy” that I would say theocracy is a sin that everyone is guilty of. I would instead say that my brand of theocracy is the only authentic one—sort of like what the CP Platform does when it identifies “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States”.

    = So simply expressing JC or God as Our Creator in a party makes us theocratic? For a Libertarian you certainly take a negative view on religious expression.

    Of course, you wouldn’t bring up that part of the CP preamble that forbids Religious Tests, etc. After all you need to promote the LP over the CP, even though general Americans would be horrifed by Mary Ruwart’s comments on Child Porn.

    Diagnosing the CP as theocratic is not at all the same thing as “bashing Christianity”.

    =Except your LP bloggers like to do just that here. Do I need to bring up some samples?

    But thank you for confirming that your politics and your religion are so intertwined that you cannot mentally distinguish disagreement with one from disagreement with the other. That’s a deliciously subtle piece of irony.

    =Actually, you have shown me why, as organized as the LP is, they cannot rise above electing people to local office or a occasional legislative seat.

    “Talking about Christian values in government” is not theocracy until you start saying (as the CP does) that “scripture” should shape the government’s laws.

    = So we should dump ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ philosophy from our nation’s criminal laws? Or we should ban Capital Punishment because of certain verses in the Bible that uphold killing murderers?
    BTW at least none of our elected office-holders worked to ban the Wicca religion from the US Military, unlike Mr. Barr.

    As for condemning the entire LP because of the views of a few members, well, let the political party that is without kooky members cast the first stone. If you want to change the subject from comparing party platforms, at least have the intellectual courage to admit it.

    = How about you first acknowledge that our Party doesn’t advocate Theocracy, and that your articles are filled with nothing but outright bias against the CP.
    If you want to see who does actually advocate Theocracy, visit: www.theamericanview.com

    = I’d rather be in a party with people who are highly enthusiastic in their beliefs, then a party where the people want to legalize almost everything from Child Porn to Prostitution, and the leadership tolerates such people being in the Party ranks.

  59. Clark Says:

    AN APPARENT REPUBLICRAT ZOMBIE ECONOMIST SPEAKETH: “There may even be good alternatives for tax reform that have not yet been proposed.”

    ...indeed, brian!..and here’s a real good idea for your republicrats: FIRSTLY….THAT THE PEOPLE WORKING THEIR NOISE HOLES ABOUT ILLION-’DOLLAR’ “TAX REFORM$” HONESTLY UNDERSTAND THE REALITIES OF EVEN ONE “DOLLAR”...BECAUSE IF THE APPARENT GODDAMNED FOOL$ DID, THE SUPERIORITY OF “THE CLARK PLAN,” FOLLOWING, WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS LOOOOOOOOOONG AGO!!.. :

    ..HOLTZ, THE NITWIT MARSHALL, and ANY/ALL other republicrat economics wizards here, I ASSERT that an honest understanding of today’s ‘money’ would lead to the conclusion that there really is no need to ‘tax’ us ‘DIRECTLY’...i.e. “income taxation,” ‘sales taxation,’ etc….PERIOD…..........

    ...forcing countless wasted hours, trees, more mailmen etc. ad goddamned nauseam, as we are forced/coerced to provide minions of Republicrat monetary ignoramusses, bean-counter$, etc. with our ‘economic diarie$’ so as to administer stooooooooooooooooooooopid fucking ‘income tax,’ ‘national sales tax’ etc. DIRECT TAXATION schemes…(‘CHRISTIANS’ TAKE NOTE: aren’t many of you violating exodus ?23 ‘Thou shalt not submit a false report..don’t be an unrighteous witness…etc..’..if you understood ‘the money’ you would understand while you may have had ‘income’ of some federal reserve tokens, you surely didn’t receive any ‘dollars’.. but i digress)..;o)

    ..I ASSERT ‘the government’ could surely create all ‘the money’ they need out of thin air—with the flick of a pen—just like the $hady ‘commercial bank$ters’-CHARTERED/CREATED/PROTECTED BY/ETC. “GOVERNMENT”-do today! ...and leave the rest of us alone and happier!!..thus ‘taxing’ us all ‘INDIRECTLY’..and, at least, MUCH more fairly and efficiently THAN THE WAY YOU REPUBLICRAT MUNCHKIN$—BARF, HOLTZ, THE NITWIT MARSHALL AND HIS FAVORITE FUCKING ECONOMIC GENIU$E$, ETCETERCRAT WITCH DOCTOR$ GODDAMNED GALORE, DO “IT” TODAY!!..

    ..and when some poor pitiful goddamned republicrat fool, who doesn’t even know what ‘a dollar’ is, parrots to me, ‘That would be inflationary, Clark’..i ask the poor pitiful goddamned republicrat fool, ‘why is ‘my’ way of ‘taxing’ (indirectly) any more ‘inflationary’ than ‘taxing people/businesses/etc. (directly) who then pass that ‘expense,’ etc. on to the customer ‘hidden’ in the prices of their ‘products!’...A VERY BAD WAY TO OPERATE FOR THOSE EVEN REMOTELY CONCERNED WITH ‘TRAN$PARENCY IN GOVERNMENT,’ ETC..

    ...face it, holtz and THE NITWIT MARSHALL, for all your blowholery—and the rest of you economic geniuses too—about ‘the economy’..you haven’t an honest clue as to the origin, nature, etc., of the mo$t ubiquitou$ economic commodity…those ‘dollars’ about which you work your holes, around which you organize your lives, etc. ad nau$eam..

    ...as one wag put it, ‘money is a measure…and to allow certain priviliged people to sell 11 inches as ‘a foot,’ while buying 13 inches is to eventually enthrone them..so do not wonder why thing$ are the way they are…they are because the enthroned want them that way…’

    ...your concerns about any important, long-lasting differences amongst third people, and the stinking fucking republicrats are thus rendered trivial… ;o)

  60. Clark Says:

    ..your concerns about any important, long-lasting differences amongst third PARTY people, and the stinking fucking republicrats are thus rendered trivial…

    ..but have a good day..

  61. Clark Says:

    http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/edison.html

    THOMAS EDISON ON
    GOVERNMENT CREATED
    DEBT FREE MONEY

    Prosperity, September 2000

    In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama. They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon their alternative money theories, which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921.

    Objecting to the fact that the Government planned, as usual, to raise the money by issuing bonds which would be bought by the banking and non-banking sector—which would then have to be paid back with money raised from taxes, and with interest added—they proposed instead that the Government simply create the currency it required and spend it into society through this public project.

    This is also the Prosperity proposal.

    Thomas Edison made it plain in the following excerpt from The New York Times, December 6, 1921 issue (“Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals”). Here, the reporter is quoting Edison:

    “That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

    “Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000—that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

    “But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

    ” ... if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.

    “It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

    “Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?”

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
    Henry Ford

    (of course you republicrats may have a hard time understanding any of this simple reality..as you—unlike apparently edison, ford, and yes, CLARK!—are worse than clueless as to the origin, nature, etc.. of even one ‘dollar,’ etc..ooga booga boo, republicrats!...) ;o)

  62. Bill Lussenheide Says:

    Edison’s plan at first glance sounds good. But like all “perpetual motion machines” there usually is a fatal flaw.

    Just creating money out of thin air, and spending it, will still come with a cost and an effective tax. This tax is known as the “inflation tax”. In the above example, the diluted dollars spent, would cause prices to rise on all goods, lower the international value of a dollar, and would cost EVERYONE because of higher prices.

    There is no such thing as free money, or defying the law gravity for very long. This is why fiat currency, whether lent, or simply created out of thin air is a BAD system. Only 100% asset based currency can produce a long term workable system that will not have expansionary inflations and depression/recession deflations.

  63. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” There is no X whose arbitrary whims can settle a moral question for atheists the way that the whims of God can settle moral questions for theists. ”

    Response : This is absolutely untrue. ” X ” for atheists is themselves. Atheists simply eliminate God and put themselves in His place. But of course they will deny this up and down the block while proclaiming that they are governed by ” reason.” Yeah, right. They will use this same ” reason ” to proclaim that the utterly fantastic human body comes from ” evolution,” the chance roll of the dice. All this in their desperate attempt to deny God inclusive of the denial of the Maker of the very body they use to proclaim their denial. The political implications of this denial are endless, montrous, and catastrophic producing unending tragedies and death for humanity. But for the deniers the old saying still ( and will always ) stands – Better to be a king in hell than a servant in heaven.

  64. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” I’ll no more debate the virtue of protectionism than I’ll debate the flatness of the Earth. ”

    Response : Sounds just like Al Gore and ” global warming.” Indefensible positions are ” defended ” by running away from the discussion and calling the opponents ” flat-earthers ” or ” deniers.” Very impressive.

  65. Clark Says:

    BILL LUSSENHEIDE REGURGITATES: “Just creating money out of thin air, and spending it, will still come with a cost and an effective tax.” (END)

    (...no shit, bill!..and you republicrat ?CP boys will need lot$ of ‘tax money’ to run your fucking police state, etc. ad goddamned nau$eam!..)

    MORE BL BS: “This tax is known as the “inflation tax”.” (END)

    (YES BILL…and today we have BOTH ‘an inflation tax’—GREATLY BENEFITTING $ECRET $QUIRREL BANK$TER$—AND HUNDREDS OF UNNECESSARY, BURDENSOME, FUCKING, DIRECT TAX SCHEMES TO BOOT…)

    MORE BL BS “In the above example, the diluted dollars spent, would cause prices to rise on all goods, lower the international value of a dollar, and would cost EVERYONE because of higher prices.” (END)

    ..i addressed this asinine republicrat line of thought already, Bill!

    “..and when some poor pitiful goddamned republicrat fool, who doesn’t even know what ‘a dollar’ is, parrots to me, ‘That would be inflationary, Clark’..i ask the poor pitiful goddamned republicrat fool, ‘why is ‘my’ way of ‘taxing’ (indirectly) any more ‘inflationary’ than ‘taxing people/businesses/etc. (directly) who then pass that ‘expense,’ etc. on to the customer ‘hidden’ in the prices of their ‘products!’...BTW, A VERY BAD WAY TO OPERATE FOR THOSE EVEN REMOTELY CONCERNED WITH ‘TRAN$PARENCY IN GOVERNMENT,’ ETC..)

    MORE BS “This is why fiat currency, whether lent, or simply created out of thin air is a BAD system.” (END)

    ...(ALL MONEY IS/HAS BEEN “FIAT” BY NATURE..i.e. whatever ‘the government’ DECLARES that we use ‘as money’—to pay taxes, fees, fines, court settlement orders, etc..—WILL BE THE PREDOMINANT FORM OF “MONEY” IN THAT “JURISDICTION”..whether it be gold, silver, platinum, horseshit, toothpicks, etc. ad goddamned nauseam,...or, today, stinking federal reserve tokens..what you call ‘dollars’)

    ..MOREOVER, AS TO YOUR CONFUSED, FAIRY TALE REPUBLICRAT UNDERSTANDING$..EVEN “GOLD” WAS NOT “MONEY” UNTIL “THE GOVERNMENTHAD “PUT ITS STAMP OF APPROVAL UPON THE GOLD/SILVER COIN/DECLARED IT AS MONEY”..so hush up about ‘fiat’ money!..

    ...i believe the distinction you are trying to convey in your confused, republicrat, brainwashed state is NOT ‘FIAT vs. NON-FIAT’ but rather ‘money’ with some ‘intrinsic value vs. extrinsic value’..

    ...it appears “money” HAS ALWAYS been by man…not nature..

    ..and those of you republicrats with fanta$tic theorie$ for some futuri$tic ‘money system’ based on some fucking ‘free market’ delusions, etceterot, ought to STFU and AT LEAST HONESTLY learn a little as to the present and past before you work your cake holes too much about “the future”..

    but have a good day!... ;o)

  66. Brian Holtz Says:

    Cody, my definition of theocracy wasn’t “invoking religious themes” or “simply expressing JC or God as Our Creator”. My definition was “imposing the laws of your god(s) on your fellow citizens for no other reason than that they are the laws of your god(s).” Absolutely NOTHING in the DoI imposes the revealed laws of any god(s) for no other reason than that they are such revealed laws. However, the CP Platform says: “The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law [...] The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” Are you ever going to even try to defend those specific quotes as not theocratic?

    Yes, North Korea may be the exception that disproves your silly claim that communism is theocracy. A cult of personality is just not the same thing as theocracy, and any freshman PoliSci major could explain the difference to you. Here’s my challenge for you: quote Soviet or Red Chinese official propaganda that invokes anything like “Biblical law” as an unquestionable source of moral revelation—as opposed to a conclusion demonstrated using communist theory. You can try, but you will fail.

    I already told you: “I didn’t have space to list that or all the many other things we agree on. If you want to criticize my article, then either 1) identify an important disagreement that I didn’t list, or 2) show that I’ve claimed a disagreement where there isn’t one.” You’ve failed to meet either challenge. Give up?

    You invoking Libertarian bloggers and child porn and Mary Ruwart and Bob Barr’s past are just textbook red herrings, with zero relevance to the differences between the CP and LP platforms. Thank you for implicitly admitting that you can’t meet my challenge above.

    Your “thou shalt not kill” point is already a smoking cinder. In the very comment to which you’re replying, I made the unrebutted point:

    ) murder is illegal because it’s universally held to be a violation of natural law. Murder is not illegal merely because Moses read it in a tablet on Mt. Sinai. You’ll notice that several other items in the Ten Commandments are not illegal—at least until the Constitution Party “restores American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations”. (

    I’ve already explained with textual evidence how the CP platform meets my definition of theocratic. As for “bias against the CP in my articles”, all my articles have done is highlight the objective differences between the CP and LP platforms. To a freedom-lover, my articles would indeed seem biased against the CP. To a theocrat, my articles would seem biased against the LP. That you take the former perspective instead of the latter suggests hope for you yet.

    Or maybe not, since you’re apparently against legalizing sexual commerce among consenting adults. By the way, why would you be against that? Because Yahweh told you so, or because it’s your interpretation of natural law? If natural law and biblical law are identical, then why does the CP platform theocratically invoke the Bible where the DoI doesn’t? And if natural law and biblical law are non-identical, then how is that not an admission that the CP is theocratic?

  67. Ronald Monroe Says:

    As an official of the U.S.Taxpayersw Party of Michigan I have seen a vast increase of interest for Chuck, in the last few days.

    I understand financial support for Chuck has gone up since last week. Grant you it has a long way to go to be combative at all.

  68. Brian Holtz Says:

    Don, my full quote was:

    BH) one side settles arguments with “X said so”, where X is some god or some sacred text. There is no X whose arbitrary whims can settle a moral question for atheists the way that the whims of God can settle moral questions for theists. (BH

    It’s simply ludicrous to claim that “X for atheists is themselves”. Atheists don’t settle arguments by saying “I said so”. You won’t find any “I said so” in my own discussion at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#OriginOfValues

    Again, I just have to chuckle at the way you guys argue. Instead of proudly defending the idea of laws based on the perfect wisdom on an inerrant sacred text authored by an omniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent Creator, all you do is carp that the ethics of infidels are just as arbitrary and whim-based as your own.

    Meanwhile, you can add your creationism to flat-Earthery and your protectionism as theories that aren’t worth my time to debate. My goal here is not to persuade fans of a Bible-thumping party to switch to the LP. My agenda is simply to let self-described libertarians know what positions they are lining up behind if they support the CP nominee instead of the LP nominee. By highlighting these differences, I know I’m taking a risk that the LP will lose the support of people who can’t resist the urge to impose their own personal religious morality on others. However, I don’t want religious conservatives to mistakenly vote LP any more than I want libertarians to mistakenly vote CP. I do third-party politics because I think elections should be about ideas. If highlighting the differences between the LP’s official ideas and the CP’s official ideas makes CP fans uncomfortable, that says more about their own cognitive dissonance than about my own “bias”.

  69. John Lowell Says:

    Brian Holtz

    “John, thanks for ignoring both my writings on Christianity and my multiple citations of ‘theism’ definitions above.”

    Well as I’d mentioned at least twice previously, my concerns had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing a workable definition of “theism” but rather with why it might be that you’d used that term at all when dealing with Christianity since Christianity is trinitarian, not theistic, a distinction of no small moment. If you haven’t the foggiest notion of what the Christian religion teaches about God, if you can’t speak with accuracy about its most central dogma, then you really ought to fold your tent. Can you speak intelligently and knowledgably about the Christian teaching on God, what it is, and how it understood by the Church, Brian? And I’m not talking about the irrelevancies of some fanciful offering on Scripture and early Church history, but with whether you actually grasp the content and meaning of the teaching as the Church herself understands it. I don’t think you do, Brian, and until you do, anything you might write about the faith is simply so much unscholarly garbage. So put up or shut up, little man. Either establish that you understand the dogma or disappear. I haven’t got time for poseurs.

  70. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” It’s simply ludicrous to claim that “X for atheists is themselves”. Atheists don’t settle arguments by saying “I said so””

    Response – Since atheists have eliminated God then they automatically become the highest, and only, source for laws and everything else. They proclaim that God doesn’t exist so if you can either A) defeat God or B) declare that He doesn’t exist then what does that make you? His replacement. Atheists automatically claim to be God even if they don’t proclaim it. They claim to be the source of all reason and sanity since they have already decided that The Source does not exist. Why? Because they, with their galactically superior reasoning, have decided so. They then try to top it off by saying that they really don’t proclaim themselves as God. They are too modest to do such foolishness when they have already declared that there is no God. What B.S. Ludicrous is the very definition and base of their ” reasoning ” but they are too self-absorbed and glowing with their polished egos to see the truth as they are so busy proclaiming that they ARE the truth. The political consequences of such narcissism are countless and all tragically and disastrously so. Countless millions have paid ( and will continue to do so ) with their lives as a result of the Garden of Eden continuance of man proclaiming himself to be God.

  71. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Meanwhile, you can add your creationism to flat-Earthery and your protectionism as theories that aren’t worth my time to debate.”

    Response – English translation ” – You don’t have the intellectual capacity to argue your point because you know that you will be annihilated. This is totally understandable given your basic premise which is as follows – Light hits the computer screen and reflects into your eyes and carries the message to your brain which interprets it and then send response messages down to your fingers to type out the appropriate wording which you choose. So you claim 1) that this ENTIRE process; + 2) EVERY cell and all of its structures both involved in the process and irrespective of 1) – ALL of these – HAPPENED BY TOTAL AND COMPLETE CHANCE. Just like rolling the dice. 7 each and every time. Continuously. And all this is based on the idea of something ( life ) coming by chance from nothing. Now tell me – 1) What type of car do you drive? and 2) what ” patch ” did you dig it out of? I mean if you have a Toyota you must have dug it out of the Toyota patch as it could not possibly have been designed. This is so “obvious ” since the human body is a trillion trillion trillion times more complicated than a car and it ” obviously ” happened ONLY by chance/accident/roll of the dice. So how could a car actually be ” designed?” Only a ” religious fanatic ” ( like those in the CP ) could possibly think such a thing. It MUST ( according to atheist ” logic ” ) have occurred also, and ONLY, by chance/accident. Just like you can ” construct ” a Boeing 747 by dropping a bomb in a junk yard. You simply have to drop enough bombs over a long enough time period. Or you can simply dig it up from the 747 patch. You see how logical atheist ” logic ” is? No wonder they are all such Brainiacs. Unfortunately their ” logical “religion has been the basis for endless and countless deaths throughout history.

  72. Steve Perkins Says:

    I respect Brian Holtz, but listening to anybody brag about their abilities at debating religion is like hearing someone boast about their skill at playing tic-tac-toe.

  73. Brian Holtz Says:

    Don, I don’t believe in the Great Pumpkin either, so I guess that means I consider myself to be the “replacement” for the Great Pumpkin. And thanks for your one-paragraph refutation of evolution—hilarious.

    John, it’s astonishingly ignorant to claim that ‘theism’ and the Christian trinity are mutually contradictory. You ignored the definitions I cited for ‘theism’—which Christianity clearly satisfies—so I’m sure you’ll ignore this pointer to where I deal with the Trinity in my book: http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#JesusNotGod.

  74. Brian Holtz Says:

    Steve, despite what you see here, there are in fact respectable arguments to be made in defense of theism and Christianity. The best ones I’ve found are listed at http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/ChristianityIndex.html.

  75. Clark Says:

    LOWELL PONTIFICATES: “Can you speak intelligently and knowledgably about the Christian teaching on God, what it is, and how it understood by the Church,...the content and meaning of the teaching as the Church herself understands it…

    ...ah yes…the fallacy of reification galore!..’christian teaching’...’understood by the church’...’the church herself understands it’

    ...republicrats, ‘christians,’ ‘the church,’ etc., are CONCEPTS/LABELS…and as we all can see, concepts, labels, etc., don’t ‘teach,’ can’t ‘understand,’ aren’t in possession of gender, etc..

    ...only people, sentient beings, are capable of such..

    ...and lowell, for every ‘christian intellectual’ you worship i’ll show you ten snake handlers, etc. bible-thumping self-professed ‘christian’ frauds galore!...

    ...but have a good day!...

  76. John Lowell Says:

    Brian Holtz,

    I’ve asked you to establish that you have a workable grasp of Christian teaching on God. You don’t that grasp. Three replies later, and all the urls in the world and all you can manage to report of it is that the teaching is a attempt “to reconcile monotheism with Jesus self-revelation” – which it isn’t – and that “Jesus is both fully human and fully divine” – which He is – and “is God in a different person” – which is intelligible only if one first grasps both from whom and how He’s considered distinct. Given both the out-and-out fanciful and the sloppy imprecision, the best I can do for you here is one out of three, Brian, and that one just isn’t going to put you up there with Aquinas, or Karl Rahner. It took the theological tradition until the 13th century fully to articulate this teaching – one might even say until the 20th if the contributions of von Balthasar on the question are to be considered – yet Brian Holtz can dispense with the dogma in three quick and easy ejaculations? And this is what passes for comprehensive knowledge? You entertain, son.

    A little hint: If you are planning to launch a polemic against the faith, legitimate scholarship would require that you demonstrate first that you have a passable handle on what’s believed and then move on to criticize it. You don’t – and, I’d venture, can’t – d