“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!

“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]!

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!

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

= 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.

“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!”

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.

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

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.

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

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

= 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.

Also has some good links in the article.