Let’s Get A Little Practical: Why I’m going for Baldwin over Barr

This was a long time coming.

Americans who are considering voting ‘Third-Party’ this election year has many choices for those of many different ideologies. However, I will address specifically, the candidates Bob Barr & Chuck Baldwin.

Bob Barr’s candidacy is nothing to scoff at, or even take lightly. A former GOP Congressman that made the switch not too long ago to the Libertarian Party. With over a million dollars raised and plenty of publicity, Mr. Barr’s prospects of upsetting the Presidential race for John McCain are extremely possible.

And we have my Party’s candidate, Chuck Baldwin, a man who may have never served in office, but nevertheless has been involved in political activism for decades and even teaching it through his radio program.
Chuck also ran for Vice-President of the Constitution Party in 2004.

Now Chuck, while the underdog in funding and publicity in relating to Robert Barr, has yet demonstrated very well on where he stands and his ideology, compared to Barr.

On a Numbers USA survey, he has scored higher on the matter of immigration then Bob Barr, in fact he was the highest scoring Presidential candidate in the survey. On the subjects of Amnesty, Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws, Drivers Licenses to Illegals, and ending Sanctuary Cities, Barr did very poorly.

Moving onto the next subject, Chuck Baldwin also demonstrated his unwavering support for Religious Liberty here, unlike the baseless accusations that many of Barr supporters have made against him on that matter here on Third Party Watch.
Yet Bob Barr did not support Religious Liberty while as a Congressman, as pertaining to his attempt to ban the Wicca religion from the US Military.

Its also ironic that Mr. Barr supported the California Supreme Court overturning the state ban on Gay Marriage, which was brought about by Californians voting Proposition 22 into law. Not only because Barr sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress, which he later recanted of- but because Barr supported a State Supreme Court decision that overturned the Will of the People in that state, which shows that Barr doesn’t support States Rights necessarily- another black mark in my book. Baldwin, however, supports the matter of leaving Gay Marriage to the states and opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment.

And comparing Bob’s position of the Free Market to Chuck’s position, I put my trust fully in Chuck.
In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period.
Another thing on the matter of greed and ambition in the American free-market; would it be a wise choice to let the corporations and companies do whatever they please without any rules or guidelines?
No.
If there’s one Presidential candidate that would actually protect our Jobs and also make sure there would be more career opportunities for Blue & White-collar workers, it is Chuck Baldwin.

Abortion is a no-brainer- Chuck wins on that one; his integrity on saving the unborn has always been solid. Yet the controversy surrounding Bob Barr on a abortion that his ex-wife had in 1983 seems to disturb me and other Pro-Lifers looking outside the major party candidates.
I may not agree with Chuck entirely on all his views on abortion, as I do not fully agree with the CP’s stance on it either, but if there’s one man that will put a stop to the status quo on Roe V. Wade, it is… Chuck Baldwin.

On the issues of Government and our US Constitution, Chuck Baldwin has stood unwavering with one of the few uncorrupt politicians in D.C., Ron Paul. Chuck was also one of the principle signers of the “We Agree” compact, and was kindly to return a ‘Thank You’ letter to Mr. Paul after Ron endorsed Chuck.
Bob Barr, however, did not sign or even attend the conference. Later Mr. Barr announced that he was having Ron Paul become his running mate; a move that was nothing but a publicity stunt and a indication that Ron was to take a back seat to Barr’s candidacy. Ron Paul wasn’t fooled and later on made the right choice.
A troubling matter too, is Barr’s refusal to debate other third-party candidates, obviously either he thinks nothing of his minor-party opponents, or he does indeed has something to hide from the debate limelight.

So, when it comes to who wins in my book on integrity and principle, Baldwin easily gets the Gold.
I cannot put my trust in a man who has flip-flopped on issues such as marijuana, the Iraqi War, and the Patriot Act.
Bob Barr’s ‘change of heart’ in ideology is a little too unbelievable for me. It sadly raises too many questions and doubts in a man such as Robert Barr.
Baldwin, though, has been consistent in his views and his CP membership. One can bet easily that Baldwin will remain a Constitutionalist in the near future, then Barr remaining a Libertarian.
Ron Paul knew what he was doing in his endorsement, despite the LP spin on excerpts from the CP’s Platform and the bashing of Christianity here on TPW.

There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, but Chuck Baldwin is as perfect of a principled candidate as you can get in my view. Bob Barr’s past history is too troubling for me and skeptical Libertarians too.
Worst of all, voting for a man that was reported to have licked whipped cream off a woman’s chest at a fundraising event kills off any hope that a man such as Barr can serve in the White House with dignity
If one is voting for Barr simply for his media attention and polling 2-5% nationally, the logic would be the same as the “wasted vote” theory that serves the strangle-hold of the major-parties.
Irregardless of polls, media attention, or background experience, my vote will be going to Baldwin: a man with a mission to save our Constitution as it hangs by a thread, and who lacks the resume of a typical Washington politician- something that indeed may hamper one’s commitment to cleaning up our government first and foremost.
Irregardless of Baldwin’s ballot-status, since Constitutionalists in eleven other states can write-in Baldwin’s name and be counted as a vote, then being forced to vote for Barr. That is a total of 48 states, enough for Baldwin to receive a Electoral majority, if ever a scenario happened.

Chuck Baldwin is a man that people outside of the constitutionalist mindset can support, even without the experience in office, or connections with the Washington Establishment; Baldwin would be a breath of fresh air in a city, and a nation, choked with the smog of bureaucracy and corruption.

Bob Barr’s campaign may be ‘over‘, but Chuck Baldwin’s campaign is just getting started.

70 Responses to “Let’s Get A Little Practical: Why I’m going for Baldwin over Barr”

  1. Donald R Lake Says:

    I got a good [or at least long] night’s sleep [it rained for the first time in months], my blood sugar, BP, and meds are AOK, so I do not know what is wrong.

    I agree with the disagreeable Cody Quirk on many of these points.

    I applaud the Libs and Greens going with a head liner instead of yet another tired party loyalist no name. But Barr and McKinney are surely their own worst enemies. [Blame it on the Atlanta area water supply?]

    While I’ve got ya here. If you have any out rage on public outrageous behavior, fiscal irresponsibility, or just plain silliness by elected officials, please, please, please, register your discust with the PAIC panel of the Public Works [Pendergast Division ???] Division of the City of Kansas City government.

    My home town’s local school board has rammed, 3 – 2, a Quarter of a Million Dollar, Artsy Fartsy Art Fence at Ruskin High School. This would be ‘funny’ even if free. There exist a perfectly servicable chain link fence, adjacent a fast flowing street level through way.

    Wanna dress up the area? Sprinkle some flower seeds at the base. Slip some wooden slats into the chain link. All for pennies on the dollar!

    With stupidity like this wad of foolishness from the Clown Colleges on Main Street no wonder the Billionaires on Wall Street are begging for [and getting] bail outs from poor people.

    Save the Limosines!
    Save the Swimming Pools!
    Save the Mistresses!

    But Kill The New Ruskin Fence!

  2. ike Says:

    On a Numbers USA survey, he has scored higher on the matter of immigration then Bob Barr, in fact he was the highest scoring Presidential candidate in the survey.

    That alone should be enough reason NOT to vote for Baldwin. The policies that disgusting website advocates are reprehensible.

  3. Donald R Lake Says:

    So Ike, what is it about ILLEGAL Immigration that you do not understand?

    The USA is not a nation. Since Honolulu 1883 we have been a global, fascist, imperial empire. But, as for the 48 contiguous states, a nation with out borders is not much of a country!

  4. Justin Anthony Knapp Says:

    At the risk of coming across as arrogant, you misspelled “too” in the passage “not to long,” and your link to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ is defective.

    -JAK

  5. ike Says:

    And comparing Bob’s position of the Free Market to Chuck’s position, I put my trust fully in Chuck.

    Another good reason to vote against Baldwin.

  6. ike Says:

    The USA is not a nation. Since Honolulu 1883 we have been a global, fascist, imperial empire. But, as for the 48 contiguous states, a nation with out borders is not much of a country!

    We should be so lucky.

  7. ike Says:

    A troubling matter too, is Barr’s refusal to debate other third-party candidates, obviously either he thinks nothing of his minor-party opponents, or he does indeed has something to hide from the debate limelight.

    You have a point there.

  8. Donald R Lake Says:

    So Ike wins the Cody Quirk trophy for being unreasonably reasonable?

    Ike, you have two points there, one behind each ear!

  9. George Dance Says:

    Baldwin wants to stop both illegal and legal immigration, doesn’t he?

  10. NH Says:

    Hmm, let’s see, because you want to help Obama get elected?

    Every 3rd party vote is a vote to HELP OBAMA.

    Thank you very much!

  11. hosertohoosier Says:

    “In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period.”

    1. It is pretty clear from that statement you are not a libertarian anyway.

    2. You also could do to learn some economics from sources other than Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan. Your job is only threatened by outsourcing if other countries are more efficient at providing the service you do – in other words “protecting your job” means fleecing American consumers. Moreover it is not a long-term strategy. Congress raised up the walls to protect American auto manufacturers in the 80’s – the result? American car companies continued to NOT innovate, and are even further behind the Japanese and Germans than ever, having stupidly banked on SUV’s being the wave of the future. Protectionism encourages inertia, not innovation, and ultimately THREATENS your job.

    “So Ike, what is it about ILLEGAL Immigration that you do not understand?”

    Lets ignore for a second that it rarely takes long for the immigrant-bashers to fail to make that distinction. Libertarians believe that markets work – why should labour markets be any different? Businesses in the American southwest face labour shortages, while Mexico has high rates of unemployment – and the law presents the obvious transaction from taking place. The problem isn’t illegal immigrants – they are a symptom of an irrational law that is selectively enforced (marijuana laws are similar – if the social ill of pot-smoking was as great and as widely accepted as law enforcement agents suggest, you probably wouldn’t have the tens of millions of pot-smokers that make those laws unenforceable in the first place).

    Bob Barr is not a great libertarian – but it strikes me as odd that you are attacking him for failing to live up to ISOLATIONIST principles, which are distinct from a longstanding tradition of free-trading pro-immigration policies from Libertarian thinkers. Right wing isolationism is a fundamentally inconsistent ideology anyhow, that posits that while markets produce optimal outcomes at home, the free operation of international labour, commodity and other markets harm workers. It is not based on any sort of credible economics, or even a consistent narrative beyond the irrational reductionism of “my buddy Joe Smith lots his job – god dang those Mexicans”.

  12. Haigh Says:

    When it comes to national exposure for the ideas of small government Barr catches the invitations and puts time up on the mass media clock a lot more than Baldwin.

    Considering the appalling state of the country’s foreign and economic policy the difference between them is academic.

    A vote for Barr is likely to get more media attention units than a vote for Baldwin. These units are important to building the next wave of supporters.

  13. jwpegler Says:

    “Baseless accusations”??? From the Constitution Party platform:

    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…

    Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony… 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…

  14. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    When Baldwin loses the election he can always run inn Iran. All he has to do is replace the word G-d for Allah and he will be elected

  15. GREEN DAD Says:

    Saw the videos still nnot convincec. As he said he is an EVANGELICAL Christian minister and my second question is how does that make you qualified again to be President?

  16. ike Says:

    Ike, you have two points there, one behind each ear!

    You know what happens when you point a finger.

  17. Chuck Moulton Says:

    It’s pretty sad that a Chuck Baldwin supporter can make a better case for voting for Bob Barr while trying not to than most Bob Barr supporters do when trying their best.

    On a Numbers USA survey, he has scored higher on the matter of immigration then Bob Barr

    Apparently this is scored like golf: higher numbers are worse. Immigration is good for freedom and good for the economy.

    Chuck Baldwin also demonstrated his unwavering support for Religious Liberty

    Then let’s see Baldwin publicly repudiate the Constitution Party’s platform rather than embracing it.

    And comparing Bob’s position of the Free Market to Chuck’s position, I put my trust fully in Chuck.

    In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period.

    Here you demonstrate you have no idea whatsoever what the free market is. In your example Chuck Baldwin rejects the free market in labor by restricting competition and apparently giving government jobs to anyone who can’t find one.

    Another thing on the matter of greed and ambition in the American free-market; would it be a wise choice to let the corporations and companies do whatever they please without any rules or guidelines?

    Yes it would. This is another example of Baldwin rejecting the free market. The problem with corporations is the subsidies government gives to them, not that they are under-regulated. In fact, corporations are over-regulated—much like businesses in general.

    Its also ironic that Mr. Barr supported the California Supreme Court overturning the state ban on Gay Marriage, which was brought about by Californians voting Proposition 22 into law.

    You are arguing that Barr is a little better on gay rights than Baldwin… another good thing. Keep ‘em coming.

    Abortion is a no-brainer- Chuck wins on that one

    Okay, Baldwin doesn’t want any pro-choice votes.

    Chuck was also one of the principle signers of the “We Agree” compact, and was kindly to return a ‘Thank You’ letter to Mr. Paul after Ron endorsed Chuck.

    Bob Barr indicated that he agreed with all 4 issue positions.

    Yes, his campaign staff are morons for giving Ron Paul the metaphorical finger and continuing to do so whenever questioned about it in the future. Okay, one point for Baldwin here… a point shared by Nader and McKinney.

    Worst of all, voting for a man that was reported to have licked whipped cream off a woman’s chest at a fundraising event kills off any hope that a man such as Barr can serve in the White House with dignity

    If two consenting adults want to lick whipped cream off each other, what do I care? In fact, this mental image goes a long way to shattering the stereotype of Barr as somewhat uptight and humorless. Another reason to vote for Barr.

    I hope this will be a continuing column of reasons religious extremists who don’t understand economics think Baldwin is better than Barr. It will go a long way to converting more Baldwin supporters into Barr voters.

  18. Andrew Panken Says:

    Please hold your baseless accusations against Barr for being too libertarian. If anything he’s a bit too watered down for many of us. Cracking down on immigration, gay marriage, increased protectionism and abortion are four subjects that most libertarians will stick with Bob Barr. You just gave some pretty convincing reasons to vote for Bob Barr. I think Bob should thank you for the boost.

    You mentioned the free market, but you seem to be quite protectionist in wanting the government to protect your job from overseas competitors. The whole problem of outsourcing our jobs overseas is a government created problem at it’s heart. Our government’s constant pushing of more credit into our financial system is just fueling the export of more and more jobs overseas. Our tax system gives incentives for shipping jobs overseas as well. The whole economy is totally distorted. Though, in your protectionist dreams, you fail to consider the millions of American jobs that are dependent on exports. If you wish to shut out imports that destroy US jobs, you must be willing to cause the shutdown of American jobs dependent on exports. So much for your plan for protecting American jobs? This protectionism you advocate just doesn’t fall in line with Ron Paul’s position on the subject. If you would take the time to study some free market economic as presented in Ron Paul’s new book, it would help you see the errors in your thinking Protectionism is a socialist big government strategy that we Ron Paul rejects.

    Regarding Baldwin, I believe he makes a good candidate. He just needs to clearly state his own views take precedence over some of the theocratic big government ideas stated in the Constitution Party platform. Number one he should simply put all his stands that are in disagreement with the CP on his website. His website just lacks information on most of Baldwin’s platform. Then, we could understand his true position? Unless, he doesn’t actually have a difference of opinion? I can’t in good faith vote for anyone, unless I can clearly see their stand on the issues. I say this about Baldwin not to attack him in retaliation for your attack on Barr, rather to help us all make our decisions.

    Personally, I am quite distressed as a RP’er and libertarian to see us attacking Baldwin or Barr. I call for all to hold their fire and just examine each candidate’s stand on the issues. Then, just vote your conscience. Attacking and smearing each other and the candidates just serves to divide us in a losing battle. Numerically, we don’t stand a chance, then we further divide ourselves by these hatchet jobs.

  19. Bill Lussenheide Says:

    To all the “free market anarchists” out there, I would like to table a question…

    How is it a “free market” when China has NO minimum wage laws, NO OSHA laws, virtually NO pollution laws, they manipulate their currency beyond legitimate market rates to their advantage, they do not allow for Labor Unions, and they employ prison and slave labor. ???

    This is not open and free markets, this is immoral human exploitation, and the USA is paying for it, both with real capital and the export of our jobs. These are just the economic considerations, let alone the fact that the Chinese are denied basic human freedoms of expression and religion, suffer from forced abortions, and we are enriching a likely future enemy who has missles aimed at us.

    Common sense says that this is pure tomfoolery!

    One poster above claims that there are “labor shortages” in the US Southwest, that somehow requiring illegal immigration to solve. I suggest he read the news and get a handle on things. Unemployment in Riverside County was just reported at 9%, with a slowing economy throughout the Southwest.

    Pure international free market anarchy is as utopian and unworkable as communism. Although I am a believer in the general principles of competition and “highest and best use” on the mini and micro scale of economics, on the mass international scale, libertarianism neglects the dangers of trading with enemy governments that are not sanguine to the dreams and philosophy of a free society.

    We should NOT trade with countries that do not practice democracy, basic human rights and enlightened worker protections. PERIOD.

    Chuck Baldwin has my vote.

  20. Andrew Panken Says:

    You’re assuming that if taxes were slashed and regulations eliminated that the US economy wouldn’t greatly expand, leading to higher employment. The problem is we don’t have a free market today. Give a true free market a chance, instead of just looking at today’s conditions and concluding the free market doesn’t work, just as liberal socialists argue against capitalism.

    Cutting off imports would slash our exports. Every argument against free trade ignores that fact. Those that urge protectionism always ignore the millions of jobs that support our exports to foreign countries.

  21. hlm Says:

    Baldwin’s idea of freedom of religion is that he should be free to force religion into the law of the land. That is the official CP agenda—they are theocrats and thus unAmerican.

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    At the risk of coming across as arrogant, you misspelled “too” in the passage “not to long,” and your link to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ is defective.

    = wording and link are corrected. Thanks.

    Baldwin’s idea of freedom of religion is that he should be free to force religion into the law of the land. That is the official CP agenda—they are theocrats and thus unAmerican.

    = Apparently ignorance & bigotry also fits into the atheist category as well.

  23. BrianD Says:

    Chuck who? He is not even on the ballot in my state.

  24. Rosco1776 Says:

    It all boils down to who is on my states ballot, looks like Baldwin won’t be.

  25. KurtFF8 Says:

    I didn’t know where else to put this so I’ll just post a comment here (the newest story on the site):

    http://www.alternativecandidatesdebate.com/

    It’s a debate among third party candidates that’s tomorrow (Monday the 7th) at 7pm and will be streaming from that site.

    I’m surprised that this hasn’t been posted on the main site, perhaps the webmaster could make a post to raise awareness about that upcoming debate.

  26. KurtFF8 Says:

    Er sorry that’s Monday the 6th

  27. Bradley in DC Says:

    Cody,

    I know from our previous exchanges that you have a problem with reading comprehension, so I’ll try to be clear:

    “Irregardless” isn’t a word no matter how many times you say it—kind of like the anti-Barr mantra you repeat to yourself.

    Dr. Paul refrains from personal attacks, and we’d all be well served to follow his example: Baldwin is not more presidential by your repeating personal attacks against Barr.

    The areas you cite as disagreements between Baldwin and Barr illustrate how Barr is closer to Dr. Paul’s views than Baldwin. In fact, you could have easily been quoting from Obama’s protectionist and make-work job programs (only he doesn’t go so far as to promise you a job).

  28. For heaven's sake Says:

    I am consistently perplexed at people who like Ron Paul but are going to support Baldwin. The two are diametrically opposed. Here are some of his positions:

    1. He has pledged to make all abortions illegal the first week he is in office. Nothing in the Constitution gives him that right, but he has decided he has it.

    2. He is against free trade. (Unlike Ron Paul). He wants to make sure we all pay a lot more for imports and give incentive to Americans to be unproductive. (That is why the author of this article likes him so much, because he will stop others from making cheap items that I can afford and forcing us to pay him a higher than needed wage so he can do a job that is not needed for a price that is higher than necessary. That is called theft – forcing me to pay you double to make something I should be allowed to buy at Walmart for half the price. But you would deny that ability to me. If you are so into force, why support Ron Paul?)

    3. He is all for lots of government force. (Unlike Ron Paul). He is praising two trigger happy border patrol guards who shot a man who might have been crossing a border illegally with marijuana in his possession. (Ron Paul is against the drug war). Baldwin, wants to get these two evil men out of prison and give them a medal for maiming an unarmed man and then lying to cover it up.

    4. Baldwin’s entire platform is based on the idea that America is closed for business to foreigners. No one outside the U.S. can purchase any stocks in any of our companies here. Again, Ron Paul is for trading with all and alliances with none. Quite the opposite of this position.

    5. Baldwin is sexist. He wants to keep all women out of the military no matter what they want. Women must also bear children when they are raped or victims of incest no matter how old they are, so this includes your daughter and my 9 year old daughter who hit puberty early. If you think I would ever let her suffer that additional torture you are insane.

    6. Baldwin is against homosexual rights. (Ron Paul is not. Ron Paul is for freedom for all).

    7. Baldwin supports the incredibly forceful war on drugs with all its useless killing and intrusion into our lives. (Ron Paul is against the drug war and for individual freedom.)

    8. Baldwin favors government control of Internet content because he does not like porn. (I guess he didn’t think it through and realize no one would have ever heard of him without a free Internet). (Ron Paul has never voted to regulate the Internet).

    9. Baldwin also supports government restriction on the private use of money on gambling and prostitution (unless you have enough to be gambling in the stock market – that is ok) (Ron Paul is against restrictions on personal freedom).

    10. Baldwin believes that education “cannot be separated from religious faith.” So much for separation of church and state.

    11. Baldwin would eliminate ALL “immigration into the country except in extreme hardship or other individual special circumstances” Poor Ludwig Von Mises. He never would have been allowed into this country to bring us the wonderful Austrian School of Economics that Ron Paul basis his entire economic theory on.

    12. Finally, Baldwin wants to force the populace into becoming Christians. He supports “all legislation which would remove Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” And you better believe that “God” means the Christian God only and all other faiths in this country can go suck an egg. (Ron Paul is much more tolerant than that.)

    I worked 90 hours a week to get Ron Paul elected. I would work just as hard to make sure this “anti-Paul” never gets a vote. He has tricked Ron Paul into thinking he is for freedom when Baldwin can’t wait to use the full power of the U.S. Government to force his views down our throats. He will eliminate all freedom of discussion by controlling the Internet. (He is too ignorant to understand once you give the gov’t the power to control something you have no control over how they use that power. That is why all gov’t power must be fought.)

    The name Constitution Party is as misleading as the Patriot Act.

    Go to the man’s website. Do some research on this guy. He is a very dangerous, evil, liberty hating bigot. Under a Baldwin administration, women would be set back 50 years or more in equality. When all you have to do is to grab a woman, keep her hostage for a month or more, rape her over and over so you can have total control of her for the next year or so, women are in a great deal of danger. Got a woman boss who is giving you trouble – here is a solution. You will end her career. Got a co-worker who is rising along side of you? Again, get her pregnant and end her career. I don’t care how much you are against abortion, this action would give the government unfettered power over all women. What next? Do we force women to have pregnancy tests? Do we tie her to a bed to make sure she eats properly? Do we follow her? Do we make her take tests every week to make sure she is doing nothing to hurt the fetus? Why not just put her in a straight jacket and tie her to a bed until she conceives? How much power do you want the government to have over women? What if a woman has a miscarriage? Will we have to take her to court to make sure it really was “natural”? How much power do you want the government to have over women? How on earth can women ever be free if they have 1000 times more government power exerted over them than men? How much power do you want the government to have over WOMEN? Why is it that men always want ten times as much power over women? Are you so terrified that you cannot play on a an equal field? What’s next, banning birth control? Why not? That is a form of abortion. The pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching itself. So ban the pill too? Where does the power over women stop? (I guess the answer is it doesn’t.)

    I cannot understand how any person who supported Ron Paul would support Baldwin. They are night and day apart. One is a patriot, the other is a candidate for the KKK. One is for freedom, one is for forcing his agenda on the populace. One is for liberty, the other is for force.

    I know Ron Paul endorsed this guy, but I also know he never did any research and has no idea that Baldwin holds the ideals mentioned above. Paul is too busy to read websites. He was angry at the LP for disrespecting him. So, he picked the first guy he could find that had a good sounding rhetoric. But beneath the surface, Baldwin is just a racist, sexist, control freak.

    I will be writing in Ron Paul’s name this year. It won’t mean much, but at least I am not supporting evil. And frankly, I think Baldwin is even worse than McBama – at least for women. Barr is another option, but I am not impressed with him. I would rather vote FOR a man than the lesser of 7 evils.

  29. libertyforone Says:

    Baldwin is a terrible man with very unlibertarian ideals. He is against liberty for nearly all but those he chooses. Unless your idea of liberty is to force people to act a certain way, then what does liberty mean?

    I am not particularly defending Barr by the way, but Baldwin is terribly evil. He wants total control over your bedroom, your body, and to make sure that everyone is indoctrinated with his brand of lunacy. Yes, I will say it. Religion is lunacy. It is bad enough to have someone who believes that nonsense in the White House, but someone who is going to push it on others? For all your Christians out there, imagine that he was a Muslim and wanted to force Muslim principles down our throats. Or some backwards tribe’s religion in Australia or something. Why is that you are all fine with shoving the rantings of the bible down our throats, but you would freak if someone did it to you with some other religion you disagree with. Well, I disagree with Christianity. I thought we were free to believe what we wanted in this country. But when a President ties his policies to religious doctrine ideals, then we are all forced to swallow that brand of particular insanity.

    The idea about liberty is to get the government OUT of our lives, not control it the way YOU want things controlled. If you don’t fight the power itself, the next guy in office will use that same power to force you to do things you don’t want to. If the President was a little man with little power, none of the problems we have now would be problems. Who would care if machines were tampered with, the office would be of so little significance that it wouldn’t make any difference who held the seat. We wouldn’t have to worry so much about elections.

    Boy, you really don’t get it.

  30. Donald R Lake Says:

    Ah, er, um, one man and one woman? Like Eve’s co-wife Lilith? Like all those patriarchs with multiple spouses? Like that? Like all kinds of Polyandry and Polygligamy in the last three million years? Like that?

    How arrogant of we limited morals to be so sure of the limitedlessness!

    And, of course, to nearly ruin this potentially fine site with infinate debates of, well, the infinate!

  31. Allen Says:

    Chuck Baldwin won’t be listed on the Montana ballot and there must be a reason why. Bob Barr is better candidate in some ways. I will not vote for McCain or Obama.

  32. Bill Lussenheide Says:

    In response to “Heavens Sake” and “Liberty For One”...

    It is unfortunate that some that are attracted to the Libertarian movement and Ron Paul have a limited, narrow, perverted vision of the world that neither most Libertarians nor Ron Paul share…

    The suspension of Natural Law.

    Liberty without law is nothing more than anarchy. Liberty without morals is nothing more than self indulgence. Liberty without vision is nothing more than immaturity.

    The misuse of the word Liberty, by those that would encourage the promotion of the enslavement and destruction of the soul through the vehicles of baby killing, prostitution, pornography, gambling and drug use is more than just plain idicocy. It is wicked, dark, evil and damnable.

    Vote for Liberty and Freedom. Vote for the Light of Truth. Vote Chuck Baldwin!

  33. Clark Says:

    ....holy smokes!...more ‘free market economics’ blather from people who can’t/won’t explain the origin, nature, etc. of the mo$t ubiquitou$ ‘market’ commodity…the federal reserve token or ‘dollar’ to republicrat know-littles..

    ...i see some republicrats here are concerned about ‘jobs’...

    ...republicrats, THERE ARE PLENTY OF “JOBS” AND MUCH HONEST WORK TO BE DONE! MERELY LOOK AROUND YOU, REPUBLICRAT DUMMIES!

    ...YOU SEE, IT’S NOT HONEST JOBS/WORK YOU REPUBLICRAT IDIOTS DESIRE..IT’S FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE TOKENS YOU TRULY DESIRE!..

    ...(in reality, these republicrat dopes do not under$tand what IT i$ they truly de$ire!..small wonder they’re so fucked-up in the head!)

    ...ooga booga, you republicrat monetary ignoramusses…but have a good day!..

  34. Ron Moss Says:

    For Chuck to through himself into the ring at this time in history is a good thing. And One can assume he would be smart enough to select Ron Paul to be his first choice to guide the treasure as it’s secretary. Anyone but the
    two choosen by the bankers, who have turned out to be the real terrorists.

  35. libertyforone Says:

    Talk about hypocrisy! “The misuse of the word Liberty, by those that would encourage the promotion of the enslavement and destruction of the soul through the vehicles of baby killing, prostitution, pornography, gambling and drug use is more than just plain idicocy.”

    A. The word is idiotic.

    B. That is the very definition of liberty. Being free to do what you want. Let’s just talk about one of the things that you are on your high horse about: gambling. Got any money in stock market? A bank? A mortgage? All of these are gambles. But then I suppose in your “free” society none of these things would be allowed?

    Why not add temperance to the list? Let’s ban alcohol too. That worked well. Hey, cigarettes and caffeine are also drugs. Better put them on the list. You best not have a cup of coffee in your hand Mr. Lussenheide. Sugar has an effect on the brain. It better go too.

    What about playing video games? That can’t be good for the soul? We should outlaw them.

    The Internet is going to have to be regulated to prevent people from meeting each other because I am sure you will be against sex out of wedlock, and all those other horrors you mentioned are available to free folks on the Internet.

    (I am always amazed that people like this think it is GREAT for the soul to be intolerant, cruel, hurtful, and controlling. I personally can think of nothing more corrupting to a human.)

    I actually thank you Bill, you have made my point so loud and clear. There are many people like you who support Baldwin and want to eliminate liberty from our lives. That is why Baldwin is so dangerous. I know he holds the same insane, I know what is better for you than you do, holier than thou (some gambling is fine and some drugs are fine, but I get to pick) views as this writer.

    So, all you KKK members, you know who to pick this year. But, if you are for liberty, you better stay away from Baldwin and any of his lunatic supporters.

    Look, KKK members are free to have their own opinions as well in this country, but those of us who see ourselves as protectors of liberty must do everything in our power to stop them from getting any positions of power.

    That is why Baldwin is so incredibly dangerous. He too believes in all this “protecting” the soul stuff and preventing you from doing what you want in your own body. The arrogance is staggering.

    Fight this invasion of nuts calling this man a man of liberty. Baldwin is far from it. He is a Pastor who has firm ideas about how to legislate the once free lives of Americans. He will attract people like Bill up there. Thought you had a problem with Right Wing Zealousness before? If we pretend for one moment that we are supporting liberty by supporting Baldwin, we are slitting our own throats. Forever.

  36. lee Says:

    I am always amazed that people like this think it is GREAT for the soul to be intolerant, cruel, hurtful, and controlling. I personally can think of nothing more corrupting to a human.

    Also, immoral. What were the seven deadly sins again?

  37. William Says:

    If you ask me, the Constitution Party is just the home for ex-Republicans who are upset because the Republican Party isn’t socially conservative enough. If God won’t force himself upon you (he gave up His son—it’s up to YOU to decide whether you want to follow him or not) then why should human beings try to force God on anyone?

    I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said that the law does not make man virtuous. More laws aren’t going to accomplish the goal of winning more souls. No matter how many laws you pass, the free will that IS A GIFT FROM GOD WILL NOT BE STAMPED OUT! Instead of thinking He made a mistake, take it for what it is: He loved us enough to give us independence, and we must make the personal choice to reconcile ourselves to Christ. THAT is why I am a CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN. I may choose to deny myself such things as pornography, gambling, etc. BUT I CANNOT FORCE ANYONE ELSE TO, NOR SHOULD I.

    Baldwin would not get my vote even if he were on the ballot. Barr it is.

  38. DJ Says:

    While we’re all being grammer Nazi’s. “Idiocy” is also the correct term in the sentence structure he used, it was just mispelled.

    As for the commentors, amazing work. While you’re all bickering and spewing speculation about two Third-Party men who’d uphold their oaths to the Constitution, the Republocrats are working tirelessly to enact their Nationalist Socialist Republic. Please, continue to call each other names and use ad hominem attacks. McCain and Obama endorse your actions.

    And for the love of everything that is good, do some research before you either support or rebuke Austrian Free Market Economics. It’s amazing people think companies would be “free” to pollute. Try and pollute on my Private Property and see how long that’ll last—I’ll own your company. As for protectionism, getting out of NAFTA, GAT, WTO, and the rest of the alphabet psuedo “Free Trade” laws will encourage jobs to stay in America and is very Free Market.

    Chuck isn’t a Theocrat and Bob isn’t a CIA Plant. I get enough of this tripe from the Two-Party. Provocateur, much?

  39. Mark Seidenberg Says:

    Forget Baldwin or Barr, the next President should be Alan Keyes.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.

  40. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” You also could do to learn some economics from sources other than Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan. Your job is only threatened by outsourcing if other countries are more efficient at providing the service you do – in other words “protecting your job” means fleecing American consumers. Moreover it is not a long-term strategy. Congress raised up the walls to protect American auto manufacturers in the 80’s – the result? American car companies continued to NOT innovate, and are even further behind the Japanese and Germans than ever, having stupidly banked on SUV’s being the wave of the future. Protectionism encourages inertia, not innovation, and ultimately THREATENS your job.”

    Response : This is B.S. American grew to be the greatest industrial power in the world via tariffs which protected the development and continuation of our industry from economic warfare such as ” free trade;” now known as ” globalization.” Protecting jobs via tariffs does NOT mean ” fleecing consumers.” Taking jobs to Outer Mongolia because of favorable currency exchange rates may mean lower prices for consumers but only at the expense of our national security and our personal security; i.e; lower prices means the destruction of our nation and workers by turning them into 100 million hamburger flippers via the outsourcing ( loss ) of their jobs.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  41. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Right wing isolationism is a fundamentally inconsistent ideology anyhow, that posits that while markets produce optimal outcomes at home, the free operation of international labour, commodity and other markets harm workers.”

    Response : In the fairy tale world of total philosophy international markets will optimalize and produce wonderful results for everybody. In REALITY; i.e.; THE REAL WORLD; corporate and governmental manipulation of regulations and ( especially ) currency flows and rates overwhelm the fairy tale world and allow economic warfare to destroy both singular companies and especially whole nations – like ours. Illegal immigration in tandem with ” globalization ” is designed as a economic warfare against our nation which claims to be for our benefit while it places the chains of economic slavery upon our citizens.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  42. true independent Says:

    TO START OFF WITH I JUST WANT TO SAY , ARE THERE ANY INDEPENDENTS OUT THERE WITH ENOUGH COURAGE TO SPEAK UP ABOUT ANY ISSUES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ON A NATIONALLY KNOWN NEWS PROGRAM? BECAUSE ,SO FAR NO ONE HAS STEPPED UP TO THE “FOR REAL”. ALL I’VE SEEN SO FAR ARE INTERNET BLOGS THAT NO ONE WILL EVER SEE BECAUSE MOST OF THE AMERICAN VOTERS OUT THERE ARE EITHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS, AND THEY DON’T KNOW ABOUT (OR DON’T TRUST)THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES. IN MOST CASES THEY SAY CASTING A THIRD PARTY VOTE IS LIKE “THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY”. SECONDLY I WANTED TO MENTION THE EXTREME LEFT (*)CAN SOMETIMES BE AS “EVIL” THE EXTREME THE “OBAMA 38 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR TAX INCREASEPROPOSAL">RIGHTTHAT’S RIGHT FOLKS! OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR YOU EARN ,YOU GET TO KEEP A WHOLE 38 CENTS FOR YOURSELF! WOW! THAT’S ALMOST A PHONE CALL FOLKS

  43. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Yes, I will say it. Religion is lunacy. It is bad enough to have someone who believes that nonsense in the White House, but someone who is going to push it on others?”

    Response : What of your religion – secular humanism? You have no objection in pushing your religion on others.

  44. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Mark Seidenberg Says:

    October 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
    Forget Baldwin or Barr, the next President should be Alan Keyes.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.

    Response : Alan Keyes is a liar and a coward who has attacked Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party to stop a 3rd party challenge to the corrupt economics of the Democrats and ( especially ) Republicans. His surrogates, inclusive of Mark Seidenberg, deliberately filed false documents with the California Secretary of State office to deceive that office in order to knock Baldwin of the ballot. This corruption and criminal activity was fueled by Republican money in order to stop the challenge of the Constitution Party to the Republican Party over its corruption on many fronts including its economic practices. The entire Keyes campaign has been and is currently dedicated to greasing the skids of Wall Street corruption which we now see manifesting. This is accomplished by stopping challenges to this corruption by criminal acts of electoral fraud. Keyes had full knowledge of the corruption of his surrogates. In the months to come a criminal investigation of Keyes and his surrogates such as Seidenberg will expose this corruption and bring appropriate criminal charges against these Republican Party surrogates.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Indepedent Party of California

  45. citizen1 Says:

    Neither Baldwin or Barr will be on the ballot in my state. Should I not consider either? I spent some time at an event Sept. 27-28 with the state LP chair. He was wearing a ‘no Barr’ (circle with line through the name) button. He said that Barr says what the crowd he is talking to wants to hear. Barr got away with not being involved in their candidate forum because he had not officially anounced his candidacy. Barr refused to answer any questions at their state convention.
    Personally the most disturbing thing about Barr is that he defends his votes on the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. If he would admitt he was wrong I would gain some respect. He may be a capital L Libertarian but he is not a small l libertarian.

  46. Charlie's Angel Says:

    You all need to do your research! Baldwin is about following the Constitution. Barr is about talking about it. All the objections you people have pointed out are easily refuted by Baldwin’s own words if you will be respectful and intelligent enough to do your research.

    As to the issue of illegal immigration and free trade: Open borders equals no America, free trade equals globalism. When our country was at its most prosperous we had a 40% tariff! Ignorance of history and the Constitution is to blame for all of this garbage that you all are spewing.

    You are being deceived into promoting globalism by embracing fallacious ideas like “free trade”. Watch out because with this kind of thinking, the libertarian will become the stooge of the establishment, unwittingly endorsing the destruction of our independent nation. All the while pridefully believing that liberty is prevailing.

    Wake up and get the facts!

  47. PAFreedom Says:

    I know there are Christian Libertarians but they should be dismayed at the kind of ignorant anti-Christian attacks that are displayed against Baldwin.

    Ignorance in some party because people simply look at the party platform and incorrectly attach that to Baldwin. Baldwin has a strong stance in favor of religious freedom and allows for state rights regarding pot laws.

    Ron Paul made the right choice in picking Baldwin. Baldwin is closer to Paul in matters of morality, being anti-establishment, the federal reserve, world government, the N.A.U., and many other issues that are important to Paul.

    The CP platform can and needs to be re-done. For better or worse, the LP changed their platform and with new Ron Paul fans and libertarian based people joining the CP, the platform will be done.

    For now we need to be focusing on the big issues at hand, such as third party rights and not just fighting over scraps at the table.

  48. paul Says:

    If you ask me, the Constitution Party is just the home for ex-Republicans who are upset because the Republican Party isn’t socially conservative enough. If God won’t force himself upon you (he gave up His son—it’s up to YOU to decide whether you want to follow him or not) then why should human beings try to force God on anyone?

    I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said that the law does not make man virtuous. More laws aren’t going to accomplish the goal of winning more souls. No matter how many laws you pass, the free will that IS A GIFT FROM GOD WILL NOT BE STAMPED OUT! Instead of thinking He made a mistake, take it for what it is: He loved us enough to give us independence, and we must make the personal choice to reconcile ourselves to Christ. THAT is why I am a CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN. I may choose to deny myself such things as pornography, gambling, etc. BUT I CANNOT FORCE ANYONE ELSE TO, NOR SHOULD I.

    Well said William. Although I am not a Christian, I totally respect your religion when it is expressed that way. I do study Christianity, along with other religions as well, and I think your understanding sounds much more like the teachings of Yeshua I have read, than most of his self-styled followers here who want to sit in His throne and judge in His place.

    Although they may allege that I am bigoted against Christians, I have zero bigotry against your faith, in fact I respect it tremendously as I do any sincerely held religion that does not seek converts or followers by force.

    Others:

    Forget Baldwin or Barr, the next President should be Alan Keyes.

    Heaven forbid, if there is one.

    American grew to be the greatest industrial power in the world via tariffs

    No, despite them.

    Neither Baldwin or Barr will be on the ballot in my state. Should I not consider either?

    Unless you are in Oklahoma (in which case you are screwed if you are not a Democrat or Republican) or DC (not a state, and has no LP state chair, therefore, presumably, not), Barr is still suing to be on the ballot in your state. You are not in WV or LA, since Baldwin is on in those. Thus, you are in CT or ME. I would guess CT from the description of your state chair. Barr will probably be on the ballot in CT. Less likely in ME, but still possible.

  49. Mark Seidenberg Says:

    Alan Keyes (for President) and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (for Vice President) is
    the pick of the American Independent Party of California with over 334,000
    voter. The party has been around for over 41 years. These fine gentlemen were picked by the delegates to the American Independent Party Convention at the California Secretary of State Building in Sacramento, California on July 5, 2008. Don Grundmann was a delegate
    to that convention and spoke. However, he has held no office in the AIP,
    since September 2, 2008. Don Grundmann term as a National Committeeman was the last office he held. Don Grundmann is not the
    Vice-Chairman of the American Independent Party of California, and he
    needs to stop this disinformation now.

    I was the elected Chairman of the 2008 AIP Convention.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

  50. citizen1 Says:

    Mark did you use box cutters to hi-jack the AIP? Alan Keyes is on in two states so that he can continue to collect a salary and has no chance to be Prez. I supported Keyes in 2000 and considered him seriously this year. I defended him against many baseless attacks. I held the man’s hand in KC as he prayed for unity between his supporters and those who were members of the CP. Then he left the convention and set out to destroy the CP. I continued to give him the benifit of the doubt and defend him in this and other forums right up until you placed him on your hi-jacked ballot line. He is a good fit with you because you both lack integrity.

  51. citizen1 Says:

    Paul I am in CT. I do hope the LP wins the suit here but I do not have confidence that the court will rule properly or even hear the case and return a decuision in time to matter. I have talked talked to members of the CTLP like Andy Rule that I a lot of respect for and believe that the requiremnts were met to have Barr on the Ballot. In order to vote for Barr I would also have to vote for WAR. I cannot vote for him he contibuted to Lieberman’s (a member of the CFR) campaign when I ran against him. At least the CTLP chair voted for me.

  52. Don Grundmann Says:

    Mark Seidenberg Says:

    October 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
    Alan Keyes (for President) and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (for Vice President) is
    the pick of the American Independent Party of California with over 334,000
    voter. The party has been around for over 41 years. These fine gentlemen were picked by the delegates to the American Independent Party Convention at the California Secretary of State Building in Sacramento, California on July 5, 2008. Don Grundmann was a delegate
    to that convention and spoke. However, he has held no office in the AIP,
    since September 2, 2008. Don Grundmann term as a National Committeeman was the last office he held. Don Grundmann is not the
    Vice-Chairman of the American Independent Party of California, and he
    needs to stop this disinformation now.”

    Response : I went to the Sacramento convention to tell the participants, including Mark Seidenberg, that they were ( and still are ) Judases, liars, and totally corrupt as their ” convention ” was a fake designed to work in conjunction with their deliberate filing of false documents with the Secretary of State office. I was in the room for 2 minutes and then counted as a participant by Seidenberg to fatten their pathetic attendance number of 18. This is just one among countless examples of corruption by Mark Seidenberg. Keyes and Drake are on the ballot as a direct result of the criminal actions of Seidenberg, Ed Noonan, Mark Robinson, Tom Hoefling, and Alan Keyes in deliberately filing false documents with the SoS office. They were not ” voted on ” or ” chosen ” by the party whose members would in fact reject them in a normal vote which was thwarted by the corruption of Mark Seidenberg and others who feared a actual vote and instead filed false documents to corruptly put Keyes and Drake on the ballot. This action was backed by Republican Party money in their desire to destroy the 3rd party voice of the Constitution Party which would challenge their corruption on multiple fronts including their roll in our current economic crisis. Mark Seidenberg is a utterly corrupt former member of the American Independent Party. A vote for Keyes and Drake is a vote for corruption. Chuck Baldwin is the write-in Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party in California.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  53. Bradley in DC Says:

    I responded to the arguments in the article more fully here:
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article5138.html

  54. paul Says:

    Good article Bradley in DC!

    citizen1…sorry to hear of the limited choice in CT. How are the write-in rules in your state? (Some states only count the write-in votes of candidates that apply to have write-in status, a few allow votes for all candidates whether they ask to be candidates or not, some others do not count them at all; some only count aggregate votes for all write-in candidates lumped together, some only count them if they can swing the election, etc.)...I guess you could vote for Nader…he is too big government for me, but at least he stands up for the American people on issues like opposing the bailout and bringing the troops home alive.

  55. Susie Says:

    “Irregardless” is not a word. The correct word, with the same meaning as what was intended, is: regardless.

    Too, on “a abortion”? If an “a” comes before a vowel you would use “an”. Id est: an abortion.

    Proof-reading and spell check are great tools.

    My unsolicited two cents.

  56. libertyforone Says:

    For those of you that are considering the write-in option, here is a good article on the topic: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton5.html

    Also has some good links in the article.

  57. citizen1 Says:

    Paul,
    Votes for registered write-in candidates are counted and reported and Baldwin will be a registered write-in. Unfortuneately the best candidate in my congressional districr that I will be able to vote for is the Green party candidate. The incumbent voted for the bail out and I did not like him to begin with. The Republican does not take a stand on anything.

  58. Cody Quirk Says:

    Dr. Paul refrains from personal attacks, and we’d all be well served to follow his example: Baldwin is not more presidential by your repeating personal attacks against Barr.

    = Funny how the Barristas here cannot refrain from personal attacks. So I decided to even the score.

    The areas you cite as disagreements between Baldwin and Barr illustrate how Barr is closer to Dr. Paul’s views than Baldwin.

    = Yet Ron Paul endorsed baldwin, obviously there is logic to his endorsment. You can explain the difference between Baldwin and Paul till’ you’re blue in the face, but nothing will change Ron’s choice of candidate.

    In fact, you could have easily been quoting from Obama’s protectionist and make-work job programs (only he doesn’t go so far as to promise you a job).

    = And taking that view, Obama just might win the Election over McCain.

  59. Porter Rockwell Says:

    All the codswallop on this thread is nauseating. The more you jackasses post…the better looking Sarah Palin’s legs become.

    BTW…No right thinking Latter Day Saint should ever cast a vote for the likes of Chuck Baldwin.

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

    Mark Seidenberg , Wiley Drake, Mark Robinson and Ed Noonan…..
    Be advised, NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU. YOU ALL do NOT matter anymore. You ‘four’ made your bed and you can all “LIE” in it!
    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.) USAF

    Nat.Chrm. NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION
    www.nvets.org

  61. robert_b aka bob_a_Randian_Objectivist Says:

    ??? wrote in the article:

    Ron Paul knew what he was doing in his endorsement, despite the LP spin on excerpts from the CP’s Platform and the bashing of Christianity here on TPW.

    As an Objectivist, I cannot support any candidate that accepts any faith based religion. While I love the United States of America and the Constitution, super-natural religion is silly nonsense with no place in proper government. For that reason, I cannot support Barr, Baldwin or Paul. Obama, McCain and Nader are socialists and Keynesians; I cannot support them.

  62. Don Grundmann Says:

    “...super-natural religion is silly nonsense with no place in proper government.”

    Response – Every person, without exception and including atheists and agnostics, has a religious belief. It is therefore impossible to have a government which is not motivated and controlled by religious belief(s). Your only complaint is that Christianity currently has more power than, or at least interferes with and openly opposes, your own religion of secular humanism.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  63. Lojiko Says:

    So, we can stand by Baldwin’s non-existent, unproven record, but we can’t trust Barr since he has a shitty voting record, in spite of the fact that he’s renounced neo-conservatism. Compare apples to apples, my friend. If you’re going to take Baldwin on his word, take Barr on his also!

    It’s very easy to stand by a non-existent voting record … quite another to admit when you’re wrong and switch sides. I prefer the devil I know to the devil who mentions Jesus umpteen times in his Party’s platform.

  64. Lojiko Says:

    “Hi, I’m Sarah Palin, and after serving as mayor of a no-name town and briefly serving as the governor of the smallest State in the Union, I’m qualified to be vice-president.”

    “Hi, I’m Ralph Nader, consumer advocate. I want to control your nuclear weapons.”

    “Hi, I’m Chuck Baldwin. I run a church. Vote for me for President this November!”

  65. Cody Quirk Says:

    Baldwin does well in an anti-immigration Numbers USA survey that would put Baldwin’s positions opposite Dr. Paul’s (whose are the same as Barr’s). Interestingly though, Quirk goes on at length making personal attacks on Barr’s history—but fails to mention how the group he likes gives Barr an “excellent” rating based on an “Assessment of Past Immigration Actions in Political Office” of “Congressional, Gubernatorial and Mayoral actions” where Baldwin, who has never held public office, gets no rating at all. Experience must not count for anything.

    = Then again, if we held Barr to these last two sentences, Barr’s experience would be terrible compared to the experience that McCain and Obama have as politicians.
    Better a candidate like Baldwin, whose integrity and character is fully intact from not serving in office- then someone like Bob Barr, who has had to flip flop on a lot of major issues to become the LP Prez. candidate.
    Again Baldwin scores better then Barr, and therefore Americans concered about immigration can easily vote for Baldwin over Barr.

    Again according the the Numbers USA survey, Baldwin gets “excellent” ratings for these issues: Reduce legal immigration, Stop future illegal immigration, Mandatory workplace verification, Punish employers who hire illegal aliens, Local Enforcement of federal immigration laws, Implement entry-exit system, End sanctuary cities, Prohibit states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and Prohibit in-state tuition to illegal aliens (Barr generally gets a “fair” to “poor” rating on the same questions). I will come back to the question of whether or not these are the “correct” positions that represent Dr. Paul’s stated views and philosophy, but first I have to ask—as Dr. Paul is so fond of asking before voting on any legislation—where is the authorization in the constitution for the president to act on these questions?

    = Apparently the President has the power to sign congressional legislation dealing with these matters, or working with congress on drafting such legislation.

    One would think that a presidential candidate of the “Constitution Party” claiming the views of Dr. Paul would understand the limitations on the federal government vis-a-vis the sovereign states.

    = If we’re still talking about immigration, the rules regardling naturalization is left to Congress to regulate.

    Quirk claims that Barr tried to “ban” Wicca from the military and therefore that Baldwin has a better record on religious liberty. He cites a group that explains the simple fact that then-Congressman Barr issues a press statement: “BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES.” Does Quirk equate ending taxpayer funding with taking away our liberties?

    = Nice try but your spin doesn’t work, he didn’t want to end taxpayer funding of Wicca in the military, he wanted to literally ban it from the military!

    Barr stated about Wicca in the miilitary:

    “...sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.’ ”

    &

    “...What’s next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastafarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?...”

    And he concludes his Press Release:

    “A print of the painting, ‘The Prayer At Valley Forge,’ depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations.”

    These statements don’t sound Libertarian, in fact he’s making Christianity sound better then Wicca here. Funny how Barristas are quick to shoot down anything religious coming out of Chuck’s mouth.

    Such hypocracy.

    The implication here is that Quirk has bought into the progressive notion that if the government is not subsidizing a right or liberty then they are prohibiting it—which is, of course, the justification for government funding for the “right to abortion” otherwise poor women might not be able to afford the procedure and “lose their right.”

    = Better get your hearing checked, because I was talking about Barr wanting to literally ban Wicca from the military. LOL!
    BTW, each state had medical exceptions for abortion before Roe v. Wade.

    Dr. Paul, of course, does not share this interpretation. I am explicitly refraining from an examination of the Constitution Party here; others can look at their platform and candidate and make their own assessment.

    = Better then reading a typical LP article taking the CP platform out of context.

    Quirk aims to put a wedge between Dr. Paul and Bob Barr on the Defense of Marriage Act. Here again, his argument fails.

    = Not exactely, that went to show Bob’s flipp flopping on the issue.

    Dr. Paul has said he would have voted for Barr’s measure had he been elected earlier.

    = Exactely, and Ron still supports it, unlike Bob. However, I was only talking about Bob & Chuck only on that matter. And you fail in this argument.

    All three candidates think the issue ought to be left to the states, and all three oppose a Constitutional ban. The positions of the three are basically similar in approach regarding abortion as well, although Quirk stoops to personal attacks of decades-old allegations-

    = The fact that Barr held anti-Libertarian views, or stances that are contrary to Libertarian beliefs previously is a matter that needs to be brought up. The other issues illustate how those incidents of the past could hamper his personal conduct as POTUS.

    -Dr. Paul emphatically opposes the use of personal attacks to make policy arguments. Unfortunately, Quirk resorts to personal attacks on Barr when not even trying to make any policy arguments at all.

    = Funny how Barristas (Barr supporters) on TPW have resorted to vicious, bigoted attacks on Baldwin and the CP and even on the subject of religion in general. I’m only returning the favor- this is what you get.
    BTW, I’m not running for President, nor was I seeking Paul’s endorsement, I don’t have to meet Ron’s standards, neither to the Libertarians on TPW- which eagerly engage in personal attacks on Chuck and the CP.

    I will readily concede that working at the Moral Majority is probably a more ethical place than Congress, but I do not see how that makes one better qualified to be president.

    = For one, Chuck doesn’t have to worry about political baggage from the past, and two- it would be easier for a outsider to reform Washington DC, then one that was a part of the problem there.

    Even more distressing, having a more colorful past seems to be more of a political benefit than a hindrance.

    = That doesn’t work on all voters.

    We are talking about the same electorate that chose Bill Clinton for a second term. Quirk seems to place a great deal of personal importance on integrity and principle. That is his right. The truth is that two of the three have reputations for being principled in Congress.

    = Count Barr out then.

    The article then moves to an examination of Barr and Baldwin’s positions on free trade: “[Comparing] Bob’s position of the Free Market to Chuck’s position, I put my trust fully in Chuck. In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period.” Wow. First of all, I hope someone else can verify (or more likely refute) that that is a fair characterization of Baldwin’s positions.

    = You can’t? Please convince me that Baldwin is not a friend of the American Workingman or that he doesn’t want to protect or jobs.

    I suppose the simplest way of considering the dirigiste arguments espoused in the link to Baldwin’s position would be to quote the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises from his authoritative Human Action which guides Dr. Paul:

    It is certainly true that our age is full of conflicts which generate war. However, these conflicts do not spring from the operation of the unhampered market society. It may be permissible to call them economic conflicts because they concern that sphere of human life which is, in common speech, known as the sphere of economic activities. But it is a serious blunder to infer from this appellation that the source of these conflicts are conditions which develop within the frame of a market society. It is not capitalism that produces them, but precisely the anticapitalistic policies designed to check the functioning of capitalism. They are an outgrowth of the various governments’ interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital.

    = Yet Ron still endorsed Chuck Baldwin, I guess Ron may have some Protectionist leanings after all.

    Of course, if Baldwin’s anti-immigration policies had been in effect then, they would have kept Mises out of this country.

    = Yet there were better immigration laws on the books back then, including quotas. Baldwin’s policies wouldn’t have been needed if some of those laws were kept on the books. The US currently has the most liberal immigration laws there are and we’re paying for it.

    Bear in mind that Mises was an Austrian Jewish intellectual promoting classical liberal ideas who escaped from Nazi Europe.

    = Did he enter the US illegally, however?

    Had their been no Mises in the United States, it is doubtful that Dr. Paul would have entered politics at all.

    = Dr. Paul was inspired by a number of political thinkers, like Ayn Rand, not only Ludwig. In fact it was Friedrich Hayek’s ‘Road to Sefdom’ which got him on the political road, not only Mises. Your argument is not working.

    The bottom line is that Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin all agree more than they disagree.

    = Then why the constant attacks from Barristas on Chuck? What did Chuck do to them? Why is Chuck and the CP being dragged through the mud on Third Party Watch?

    Any of them would be better, on the whole, than the status quo—or either of the two main major party contenders. All three would aim to cut spending drastically, eliminate the Federal Reserve, abolish the income tax, end our interventionist foreign policy and nation-building overseas, etc. There are, to be sure, policy issues that separate Barr and Baldwin…but Baldwin supporters would be well served hiding those differences if they want to claim that Baldwin shares the views of Dr. Paul (and Bob Barr).

    = Yet the flip-floping of Barr’s views can’t be hidden. And attacks on Chuck from Barristas will only bring them to the limelight.

    Quirk ends with this argument that “Chuck Baldwin is a man that people outside of the constitutionalist mindset can support” and that Baldwin’s campaign is just getting started. I will add that Quirk’s own arguments and personal opinions show that Baldwin has won the support of at least one person “outside of the constitutionalist mindset.”

    = Ron is not alone in supporting Chuck.

    As far as Barr’s campaign being over, his poll support has been climbing slowly but surely over the past few weeks—and isn’t October a bit late for Baldwin’s campaign to be just getting started?

    = Better getting started then being ‘over’ like Barr’s. Please use better arguments next time.

  66. Tater Says:

    I would rather vote for a Pro-Constitution Pro-America Candidate over a flaming left wing socialist or a bombs away neocon who are both token politicians all for pushing the globalist agenda until America is no longer a nation! At least Chuck Baldwin isn’t afraid to stand up for what is right and worthy of defending. Some of you people on here sicken me with your blatant ignorance and mind numbing hatred of a real American Patriot such as Chuck Baldwin. Vote to defend our country!! Vote Chuck Baldwin on November 4th!!

  67. David K. Meller Says:

    Both Barr and Baldwin are strikingly better than the collectivist clones of the two “major parties”. The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party EACH need support, both from disaffected former major party supporters, and from independents. I think that (as Ron Paul emphasized during his campaign) the IDEAS articulated by candidates is far more important that campaign affiliation, past errors, and media gaffes.

    We all must be in a position to “hit the ground running” after election day—assuming the elections are allowed to take place at all—informing our fellow voters and taxpayers WHY and HOW we are all being victimized by the government, especially its financial apparatus and the political/corporate/military elites who batten off it (and us), build up alternatives to them at the local, State, and Congressional level so that we all can offer credible alternatives before the 2010 elections, preferably in all fifty states. This can be done by both Barr’s and Baldwin’s supporters without attacking the other.

    The issues that unite us are far more important than those which divide us. If both Obama (and his owners) and McCain (and his owners) work together to expand a criminal, parasitic, and destructive enterprise like the usurpers in Washington DC , certainly we can start laying the groundwork to work together to fulfill the ideals of Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Thomas Szasz , Harry Browne and Murray Rothbard!

    PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
    David K. Meller

  68. Nemiah Scudder Says:

    In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period.

    You get it, my friend! Socialism and Communism work, if JESUS IS ON YOUR SIDE! You just have to tell JESUS that you don’t like those dirty old laws of economics, and then high tariffs won’t force you to pay more for domestic products, and therefore enslave American consumers to American producers.

    You’re smart enough for the Constitution Party! Nor like those Moron Libertarians, and that idiot Ron Paul who actually want freedom, including economic freedom, as if we didn’t know how much better the USSR was than the USA.

    Now whatever you do, don’t ever pick up a bok on economics, because it might make understand how markets work, and the JESUS WON’T LOVE YOU ANY MORE!

  69. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Cody Quirk, how can you be typing this stuff with a straight face?

    “Dr. Paul refrains from personal attacks, and we’d all be well served to follow his example:”

    Look in the mirror, dude, look in the mirror! You smirking bigot! Ah, giving advise you do not follow! What a classless act[or]!

  70. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

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

    “Mark Seidenberg ,
    Wiley Drake,
    Mark Robinson
    and Ed Noonan…..
    Be advised, NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU.”

    Sgt Breazeale, I feel your pain.
    The not quite legal AIP officer slate has illegally [at least immorally] kept the national Baldwin ticket off of the California ballot. FORMER Reform Party of California state chair John Blare, basically an Independence Party shill, is unlawfully [at least immorally] keeping the current state slate off of the government web site.

    You have given me [and Seidenberg and Drake and Robinson and Noonan] a lot of grief on this matter. You mock the high jackers. But the fact, as I have told you early and often, come November 4th, it will be Alan Keyes, some one I just cannot stand, not Charles Baldwin, being read by millions of West Coast voters.

    Mock Noonan and company all you want, but like the corrupt old guard of the so called reform movement, the corrupt SoS has allowed the bad guys the last laught.

    You may mock the lack of response from the small cohort of minor party indies, but the massive unwashed less involved voters will never hear of Baldwin in California. Millions of folks [thanks to Debra Bowen, the thug] will see ‘Ambassodor Alan Keyes’. Each of their votes is each to each of our’s.

    As I told you months ago, ‘It’s a fact, Jack…..’

    Your gloating [and lack of ability to predict real world events] seems rather short sited and point less to me!

Leave a Reply