Before making the announcement, he discussed his "Unity Press Conference," which was attended by Baldwin, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney but not Bob Barr:
Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.
Of course, the Barr campaign has a different version of events. Bob Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, in an email to supporters, said:
After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race - just to hype the event - I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul's staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.
When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul's prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.
His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded 'non-voters'. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
Apparently there was a lack of communication between the two camps and some hurt feelings. But this is politics. There is no place for hurt feelings.
In his endorsement of Baldwin, Paul wrote:
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I'm convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I'm convinced they are. That's what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
Given the context of the entire announcement, it appears that the "shortcomings of any one person" is a thinly veiled jab at Barr. No problem. This is politics.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for "remaining neutral" in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.
I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
That is the general background leading up to Paul's endorsement.
Most people outside the insulated world of third party politics probably have a question: "Who is Chuck Baldwin?"
Let's look at the Constitution Party website for some answers.
Among other things, the CP wants to end American involvement in overseas wars, limit the federal government's powers to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and return power to those states by reviving the dormant Tenth Amendment.
So far, so good.
But let's look at some of those "other things," as well.
The CP website asks visitors to "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations."
Biblical foundations? At best, that claim is historically questionable. Throughout its website, the CP picks quotes from John Adams and others that indicate a belief that Christianity is an important part of American government.
Of course, the CP ignores quotes from Thomas Jefferson and others that indicate a different belief.
For an organization that purports to support a stringent reading of the Constitution, it fails to address why the words "Jesus Christ," "Christianity," "bible," or even "church" fail to appear in the document.
The CP has to look outside the document to support its position, which is exactly what liberal judicial activists do to support their arguments for expansion of federal power.
It begins: "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States."
The CP therefore has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
Ironically, this would keep Thomas Jefferson out of the CP. Jefferson denied that Christ was divine, and put together a little something called "The Jefferson Bible" to support that belief.
It is hard to imagine how a political party that rejects Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and Thomas Jefferson can be said to support either freedom or liberty.
In that regard, the CP platform sets forth its specific positions very clearly:
The CP is against homosexual rights.
The CP is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
The CP supports the war on drugs.
The CP favors government regulation of the internet and the media in general because both contain sexually provocative images.
The CP is anti-free market in that it favors government restriction on the private use of personal money on gambling and prostitution.
The CP is anti-free trade.
The CP supports government's power to kill criminals.
The CP would not allow women in combat.
The CP believes that education "cannot be separated from religious faith."
The CP would eliminate all immigration into the country "except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances."
The CP would keep out immigrants based on whether or not the government found them a moral burden on the country or not.
The CP supports "all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
There can be no doubt Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, freedom and limited government. But it is hard to see how Chuck Baldwin and the CP advance these beliefs.
It appears that Paul has taken a perceived slight from Bob Barr personally, and in a fit of pique, endorsed a religious zealot, intolerant of non-Christians and a believer in government authority to implement a Christian theocracy.
And that's too bad
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 72
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of David K. Williams, Jr. only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
David K. Williams, Jr. is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-09-23 11:29:46
Maybe Paul took things personally, but it's not like Barr wasn't asking for it. His campaign has focused heavily on strong-arming Paul into endorsing him in order to gain the support of Paul's grassroots. When that didn't work, he pulled a nutty and refused to engage in a little cross-third-party unity against the Demopublicans.
So much for Barr being the "savvy, experienced politician" his supporters in the LP had hoped for. Instead of using heavy-handed tactics to win votes, he should have simply come clean about the reasons behind his questionable Congressional votes and focused on reaching out to those LP members who doubted the sincerity of his conversion. Instead, he's divided his party and alienated his most visible potential supporter. Pretty lame.
I wonder what Wayne Allyn Root thinks about "the master" now? (That's how Root described Barr at the LP convention while angling to become his running mate. He intended to learn how to win "at the feet of the master.")
Posted By: James Maynard
Date: 2008-09-23 11:57:19
I lost a HUGE amount of respect for Ron Paul today because of this.
Chuck Baldwin has never, even once in his life, been elected to anything. I'm sorry, but the most powerful job in the world is NOT an entry-level position. If you can't get yourself elected Registar of Deeds, you aren't qualified to run for President.
It seems from this article that the CP is even scarier than I believed - the idea that the Bible trumps the Constitution smacks of theocracy to me.
Bob Barr may not be the perfect candidate, but he's the most Liberty-minded qualified candidate on the ballot.
I dont think Ron Paul thinks that Chuck Baldwin could be elected to this "powerful job". Really he decided to endorse a party other than the R or D. His endorsement was more of a revolution against the two big guys, rather than a newfound support for Chuck Baldwin.
Ron Paul did not intend to endorse anyone, and the Barr campaign should have respected it. Paul did not try any jab at Barr, he is speaking in general terms and realise any of the politicians, including himself, can make mistakes.
It should be noted that Paul knows Baldwin and Baldwin's own position and campaign does not reflect the platform of the CP. In short Baldwin's own personal platform is much closer to Paul than that of the CP. Of course Baldwin has his deviations and imperfect stances, but generally he is a consistent person.
I was rooting for Barr all the time, yet his and especially his campaign manager's actions have lead him the wrong way. It should be noted that both Russ Verney as well as Shane Cory are not libertarians, and thus do not understand how to convey the message. Mike Ferguson's letter on his myspace page was not helpful, to put it very diplomatically. In fact it was a full frontal attack on Paul, accusing Paul of only acting in his own selfish financial interest selling his book and yes - acting against the constitutional principles and liberty! I could not believe it when I read it. He has been asked to delete it, but no official reprimand. If Barr had a difference in strategy, why not discuss this with Paul, also after the meeting. It is clear Barr campaign has had no phone contact with Paul after the event, till now. Quite a few LP candidates have distanced themselves from the Barr campaign's snubgate
and Wes Benedict has personally called the Texas Nader and Green party campaigns and apologized for the behaviour of the Barr campaign. Paul has a few months ago endorsed Libertarian Pat Dixon. Barr should simply have showed up at the joint news conference, and he would have gained trust with the remaining Paul supporters that were in waiting mood and his funding would have picked up considerably. It is still unexplicable how Barr could behave like this, especially after he himself has met with All Gore and reached out to leftists at Netroots and agreed to working together with Jane Hamsher of firedoglake on civil liberties etc. Why work togethr with the left of the Democratic party, but not work together with Nader and McKinney - also left of the Democratic party, who stands with the 4 point plan on a far more libertarian basis than many Democrats. Verney seems to have managed to break-up/weaken a second third party (first Reform Party and now the Libertarian Party). Much to any freedom lover's regret.
Bad form, Mr. Paul. I never thought I'd say this, but I am upset with Ron Paul today. After all the speeches advocating freedom, he endorses someone with a very limited idea of the freedoms we should be allowed to enjoy. That's not libertarian, and it's certainly not what America was meant to be.
I'm a Christian myself, but I don't believe Jesus would ever run for office and try to impose his views on others. A truly Christ-like leader shows love and compassion, not exclusion. We should never try and exclude people from rights based on their beliefs being different from our own, and that's what the Constitution Party represents, instead of the acceptance and humility of Christ.
I think there's an overreaction to this endorsement and there would be equal outrage had he supported Barr.
Personally speaking, I think Baldwin cares more about the Constitution than Barr. Sure, Baldwin isn't as liberty-minded as I'd like him to be, but he's the closest thing to Ron Paul there is. This is simply my view, try not to take it as anything more. And Ron Paul's choice is his own. Disagree with him all you want. Just don't forget what he's been trying to teach people. Ron Paul always said he didn't want to run your life and if you're upset with what he's chosen, then you should at least now understand why he kept saying that. If I were in Ron Paul shoes, I'd encourage you to tell me I'm wrong if you believe I am. I'd applaud you standing on your own two feet and choosing what you believe is right. At the very least, respect Ron Paul for making his own decision. Regardless on how wrong you think he is.
If you know anything about Dr. Paul's campaign, then you should also know that Chuck Baldwin was VERY ACTIVE with the Paul campaign during the primaries, and was putting LOADS of effort into getting Dr. Paul's message heard!
He is a smart man AND no doubt knows how to separate church and state.
Mr. Williams, I respect your right to your opinion, but I believe it is historically inaccurate. While I would NEVER attempt to force my faith in Jesus Christ on you, I must hasten to add, that the very existence of this nation is testimony to the truth of the Gospel. And, back when our Supreme Court actually wrote opinions based on factual precedent, they wrote a great one here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html
I urge everyone to read the entire opinion, but note the conclusion here: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
Or, how about this from earlier in the same opinion:
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
To the authors of our Constitution, Christianity was (and is) truth. Religion was how you chose to pursue that truth in your own life, and it was the endorsement of one particular brand of Christianity that was prohibited by the first amendment!
I have no problem with Paul coming out and saying that Barr is an idiot, but to endorse Mussolini? Baldwin caring more about the Contstitution that anyone is a laugh. "Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades."
Just what part of the Constitution allows him to do this? Where does he get all this power from? Bush is anti-abortion and even he hasn't managed to pull that one out of his rear box of illegal tricks.
Great article. You nailed the CP cold.
Sadly, I think an old man's ego has gotten so hurt and bruised that he has just destroyed all credibility he was starting to get. Paul, yeah, isn't he that guy that supports the guy who wants to end the free market?
It is so sad when our heroes act like children. Worse, he is offering up a bigoted, redneck to all his minions.
Go to the Campaign for Liberty website. It is appalling how many are not thrilled that their leader has spoken and told them what to do. The sheep are falling in line, only this time a very hurt man is leading them off a cliff.
It is sad, really.
And if I am wrong, and that is really what Ron Paul believes? Then I worked for months for the wrong guy and I am an idiot.
So Ron Paul's endorsement isn't his, personally, to give?
He didn't endorse the Constitution PARTY over the Libertarian PARTY, he just said that he was staying neutral between Barr and Baldwin, and given Barr's actions and later demands he not stay neutral, he was giving up that neutrality, not in Barr's favor.
So what does it mean? No one supporting Ron Paul was going to vote for Barr after Snubgate. I had been going to vote for Barr before then ONLY because of the nice things Ron Paul said about him, Ron Paul's ties to the Libertarian party, the Libertarian party PLATFORM (which I agree is better than the Constitution party platform) and that despite the fact that I considered Barr smarmy and not libertarian, at all. I just wanted my vote to be as close to voting for Ron Paul as I could to spread his message, and at that time people were presuming Barr's support reflected Ron Paul's support.
After snubgate I was leaning towards Baldwin, but looking into the Boston Tea Party. I will never know why the Libertarian party didn't choose one of its GOOD candidates, which might have given it a straight endorsement long ago, or at least would have precluded this mess. I am more attuned to the Libertarian party platform than to the Constitution party platform, but in this election, I'm voting for Ron Paul. If my write in vote won't count, that means voting for Baldwin, now.
There are 100,000 members of Campaign for Liberty, and Ron Paul and 22,000 precinct leaders, as many as there are registered, dues paying members of the Libertarian party. Many of us may consider the Libertarian party after this election. Many of us will vote for Libertarians in other positions than the Presidential ticket. Some of us were Libertarians before and will still vote Libertarian, if only for ballot access. However, I don't think Libertarians won many new votes for the Presidential ticket, which is a crying shame, because they had a golden opportunity, and given the nice things we were hearing about the party from Ron Paul, I think we were very open to voting Libertarian.
Yeah, I agree he made it clear that his MAIN point is that we vote third party and by our consciences. Otherwise he'd have never included Nader and McKinney. He knows we have various views. But his preference is now for Baldwin, who both supported him and didn't vote for the Patriot Act or the Iraq War, not for Barr who used RP's press conference to stab him in the back, and did vote for both those things however much he MAY have changed position. You'd have to trust him, to believe he actually did so.
How are so many people questioning Ron Paul's personal judgement (he didn't tell all his supporters to vote Baldwin, he said he supported Baldwin over the candidates available), after all you know about Ron Paul's beliefs and his integrity? Is it not true that Baldwin is CLOSEST to Ron Paul's platform than anyone in the race? Yes, there are several things I really don't like about the Constitution Party platform and even Baldwin's personal views. Nevertheless, he is the most liberty minded one left and definately agrees with Ron Paul on extremely important issues.
First off, I wouldn't say Ron made an endorsement. All he said is that he "supports Baldwin." This doesn't necessarily equal an endorsement.
Also, I'm pretty sure Ron is supporting Baldwin, not his party. They are friends and Chuck worked with RP during the primaries. Ron is supporting a friend and supporter, not neccessarily a theocratic party.
I really couldn't give a little rodent's rectum less what Ron Paul thinks. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself -- which apparently differentiates me from the blindly following "Paulistas." I don't worship at the Ron Paul altar like they do. While too much government intervention is most certainly a bad thing, too much of a laissez-faire approach doesn't work either.
I have repeatedly stated in my blog comments on this website and others some of the many reasons why after 30 years of consistently voting GOP that I am voting for the Barr-Root ticket this year. So, I won't bother to restate them here. Suffice it to say that the GOP is gradually losing the support of voters like me because they have arrogantly turned their backs on the principles of limited government and wantonly squandered the legacies left them by TR, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. John McCain's nomination is just one more of their many tragic mistakes.
I will, however, restate that the Libertarian Party is FAR better off supporting a libertarian pragmatist like Barr rather than a libertarian purist. The LP is clearly at a cross-roads. It can become more pragmatic and continue to grow by attracting new members (such as constitutional conservatives like me) until it does eventually become a force to be reckoned with in American politics. Or, LP members can persist in childish infighting, insist on ideological purity, and be forever relegated to little more than a minor footnote in American political history. So, which will it be?
Like many others, I WAS planning on voting for Barr. It had taken quite a bit of time and thought to come to that decision, and it was still difficult. I too felt Barr was rather "unlikeable" in many respects, but felt the LP was more mainstream than the CP, so that put him ahead.
After his actions and words connected with the Third Party Forum situation, the bland, unexciting taste I had concerning him turned rather bitter - and rightly so. He comes across as arrogant too often and humble nearly never. I see that more now.
I switched my plans to vote for Baldwin a couple of weeks ago and Dr. Paul's announcement to endorse him has only helped to solidify my decision.
You can't make working links in comments, but readers might like to look at Political Compass's ratings of the 2008 candidates here:
As readers can see, none of the candidates are very close to Ron Paul on both the left/right and the libertarian/authoritarian axes. Baldwin, who is close to McCain/Palin on both, is close to Paul on the left/right axis, but far more less libertarian. Barr is about the same as all of these on the left/right axis, but a little closer to Paul on the libertarian/authoritarian axis. Nader and McKinney are close to each other, far to Paul's left and also somewhat more libertarian. All of this leaves Paul without any candidate clearly closest -- Obama and Biden are actually closer than any other candidates running!
So Paul would seem stuck in a hard place when it comes to choosing: he seems to chosen to forget the libertarian/authoritarian axis and picked solely on the left/right axis.
So far as the Constitution Party goes, in the past I have come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment is practically the only part of the Constitution that they really support. Their apparent goal of institution a fundamentalist Christian theocracy is especially appalling. I can't see how a libertarian could support them or endorse their candidates.
That they would actually claim that the Founding Fathers intended such a theocracy is bizarre on its face. You would think that they had never learned that the Founding Fathers expressly intended to create a "wall of separation between church and state".
And one should always bear in mind the following and hurl it in their faces:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mohemetan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-- "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and the subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (commonly called the Treaty of Tripoli"), negotiated under George Washington, signed by President John Adams after the Senate voted unanimously for ratification
If only Ron would have ran 3rd Party like I suggested back in March, he could have allowed his message to be heard by many more.
Ron Paul would be kicking ass if he would have ran as a Libertarian Party or Constitution Party candidate because everything he said about the economy is coming true!
But to argue about his decision of supporting Baldwin, is exactly what "they" want us to do. Become divisive. Say you're wrong and I'm right. They are happy as clowns now!
What we need to do is what the Campaign of Liberty says to do and work at the grass roots level and get candidates elected.
I'm still voting for Ron Paul and I'll feel good about it. No one else meets my criteria. When I'm asked a few years down the road who I voted for, I can say proudly, Ron Paul. The system is stacked against us until we change it.
In 4 years we're going to go through this charade again. What will be the difference moving forward?
What will you have done personally besides voting to make a difference?
I know I will answer that question with a resounding, "here's what I did...." by next election. What will you say when asked?
Yeah, Baldwin is so off his rocker. I mean, c'mon.
1. Does he really believe that the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" entitle us to be a free and independent nation?
2. Does he really believe that "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all mean are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ?"
3. Does he really believe that our founders were "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the universe" for the rectitude of their actions and placing "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"?
Hmmmm. So perhaps there is some sort of connection between our founding era and *gulp* a God whom Franklin lead prayer to at the Convention and whom Jefferson adhered to in a letter he wrote later on in life. Ya'll better read a little more.
Fact is, alot of you here hate Christians. I can't believe the vitriole. Chuck Baldwin agreed with Ron Paul and he's actually a better speaker than Paul. Also, Baldwin did far more campaigning for Paul than any of you. He's never said that the federal government would impose Christianity on anyone. In fact, it's just the opposite. He'd set you free faster than anyone else. And unlike Bob Barr, he doesn't have to apologize for voting for the Patriot Act because he wouldn't have done it.
Baldwin has said Christianity is what the individual needs and that it is voluntary. Many such individuals make up a Christian nation but that's different from the exercise of power. On things like drugs, you ought to be supporting him because he leaves those issues to the states to decide. So you're wrong that he "goes outside" the document. And BTW, nothing in the CP platform requires anyone to be a Christian. I know several folks in it who aren't. (I am not a CP member by the way.)
And Jefferson? Gee, a read of his bible shows that he excised everything BUT the words of Christ so that he could, in his own words, teach the Indians the pure gospel of Christ. If he thought Christ a liar, why would he do that? Hmmm?
You are brilliant! Well said. Most of the problems that libertarians or others in the liberty movement have with Baldwin or the CP are based on misunderstanding of history, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution Party itself.
To get to the bottom of this, we must do as Washington suggested:
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."
Let's drop our prideful presuppositions and seek out the truth for ourselves, for liberty. You have to admit that so much about our heritage of liberty, which was unseen before in the history of the world, is being stolen from you. Think of how the sheeple walk right into tyranny because they are ignorant. They don't know the truth and their not looking for it. So they can be easily fed lies, believing all the while that they know the truth.
Go on this journey of discovering the truth. With all that you know of Ron Paul's uncompromising integrity, don't you think he is credible. That he is well read and learned in many ways that we are not?
Way to go Ron Paul! One poster noted that POTUS was NOT an entry level position. So where has experience taken us? AFAIC Barr is a schill for the neocons, and I pray that the constitution party is on the rise.
just ask yourselves who will defend the constitution the best, there is no perfect candidate there never has been. and show some respect to a man who has sacrificed more than any of us. ron paul still gets my vote
Seems like a misrepresentation of the positions of the Constitution Party here. Please allow me to help out.
It begins: "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States."
The CP therefore has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
Hmm, you missed the part two sentences later,which reads:
"The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles."
That is a pretty clear statement, isn't it? it is, I assume you are happy to hear this as it is contrary to your very negaive assumptive conclusion.
Look, all Christians are not out to get you. Overwhelmingly, they are strongly against the concept of an inquisition.
The Constitution Party is predominately made up of people who love liberty and who desire seeing a return to constitutionally limited government. And, believe it or not, most of them have no desire whatsoever to use force to influence anyone's personal beliefs. Most emphatically, Chuck Baldwin most certainly does not, and you would know that if you simply did your homework regarding his plainly stated views on the subject.
Flame throwing does not make it easier for us all to work together towards re-establishing something better governmentally. A since we do have vast agreements on the policy front, does it not make sense to try and keep the flame thrower holstered?
The CP platform is against "any legal recognition of homosexual unions" is that a "right"?
Personally, and as a Christian, I do not want any special status granted to me by government based upon what I choose to do with my private parts. Nor do I want government to force anyone else to accept or approve of my personal moral choices. Really, the problem perhaps is the fact that government has become involved in private covenants and granting benefits to people that ti really should not be in the business of granting. Why would anyone want to have to get a license from the govenment to have a relationship with another person?
And why and how is it a "right" to have others approve of your moral choices or accept your choice of personal relationships? To force such acceptance or to force others to provide you benefits based on those choices does not reflect freedom or liberty, does it?
People and businesses should be free to accept, recognize or approve of whatever they choose to. That does not make their choices in this regard, moral, though. It does, however, reflect a proper respect for liberty of concience.
You wrote: "The CP is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest"
The CP believes in equal protection under the law, regardless of age, sex or physical development. The CP belives that no parent has the right to execute their children just because they do not want them around. Further, it believes that a preborn child is not guilty of the sins of its father, it is most certainly not guilty of anything worthy of a death sentence. The same thing goes for a child that is one year old born out of a rape pregnancy. The child is innocent, it should not be killed in or outside of the womb.
The proper principles of liberty do not allow for killing of other innocent human beings, even less, your own children, who are naturally entrusted to your care. To kill these children deprives them not only of liberty but of life itself. It's simply wrong.
Posted By: the original jason
Date: 2008-09-23 22:29:43
May i suggest we read that last line again?
"I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."
Note how he said "I'm" not "I want you to". Being who he is, and what he's been saying for the last 3(-ish) decades, his support of Chuck Baldwin shouldn't mean a good goddamn to anyone but himself.
In the last month he has repeatedly said to vote for your principles and don't let anyone influence that. So, why not vote for your principles, and not let what will most likely end up being a tactical move, influence that?
False. The CP does not support the federal war on drugs that is conducted within the states as it is outside of proper federal jurisdiction under the Constitution. That includes federal pressure and intervention in medical marijuana laws in california and the like. And on the issue of drug importation and state level laws, the party is, to be honest, not unified internally in my experience on this matter. As far as I understand his position, Chuck Baldwin would enforce the importation laws that have been passed by Congress (which are constitutional, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.) He would not, however, execute unconstitutional provisions of drug related federal mandates upon the states and within their jurisdiction.
Personally, while I have sympathy for those imprisoned under marijuana charges, full drug legalization would turn the R&D assets of the drug corporations onto powerful new, mind altering drugs of all types, for open, advertised, sale. Can you say Brave New World and Soma? Thinking of the potential consequences makes the concept of full drug legalization difficult for me to accept the cultural consequences of.
You wrote: "The CP favors government regulation of the internet and the media in general because both contain sexually provocative images."
Untrue, the CP does not advocate the regulation of either the internet or the media in general. It recognizes the perspective that government at appropriate levels of jurisdiction has a role to preserve community standards of decency. Else, you would have no legal recourse in stopping men from having sex with animals (or each other) on the public sidewalk outside your house. But keep in mind that federalism allows different standards in this regard to be applied in different jurisdictions.
The federalism solution is not one that will seem perfect to everyone, but it does allow people of different perspectives to coexist in a republic such as ours and yet enjoy a high degree of mutual benefit from one another economically and otherwise (see the constitution's preamble) without requiring us to fully assent to, or agree with, one another's moral standards, personal perspectives and political preferences.
It is a great solution politically in an imperfect world.
The Constitution Party supports the Constitution, which means most of what you mention are state issues anyway, unrelated to the office Chuck Baldwin is running for. It would seem that returning to this constitutional principle would be a huge step forward, don't you think?
Perhaps you need to reconsider the positions and motivations of constitutionlist Christians, it would seem you are quick to attribute things to them that they have not actually expressed. Even better, you should let Chuck Baldwin speak for himself, instead of attributing to him what you imagine the CP platform means between the lines. As he does here:
James Maynard, ”…the most powerful job in the world …” ???? Not constitutionally!
Russ Verney, “His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded 'non-voters'. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda”.
Surely Mr. Verney realizes that the majority of eligible US Citizens Don’t vote.
I refuse to vote for the lesser of evils and encourage everyone to do the same unless of course they truly share all the same opinions of their available candidate(s) and their respective party platforms. I don’t see any candidate on my state’s ballot that I could say represents me. Actually none of the elected officials in my county, state or country represent me or share the same belief in The Philosophy of Liberty .
Nor do any of the political parties. I believe I’m politically homeless once again.
Posted By: Larry Kilgore
Date: 2008-09-24 04:33:16
I am Christian candidate for Texas governor 2010, I received 225,000 votes in 2008. Baldwin, Paul and I have very similar political views. We want to provide safety and security to Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus & agnostics not just Christians. All law comes from a religious point of view whether it is Biblical Law, Sharia law, agnostic Law, etc. Please don't be intolerant of our religion. We can work together even though we have a few differances. www.larrykilgore.com
The US Constitution was a product of our counter revolution. Essentially, it was a peaceful coup d' etat . The *new* tories, the landed interest and bankers, wanted to fill the vacum created by the original revolution of the departed King of England. The Constitution enabled the elite to have easier access to political entrepeneurship.
Any notion that religion was the foundation of the US Constitution is a stretch. All the tertiary references to religion, God, or Creator were used as PR to con the people into swallowing the contents. After the commoners fought and won the Revolution they were no longer needed.
The Republican Party continues this con today and it works. They have no intention of creating a Police State investigating every fertile womb in America for evidence of murder. There are more important matters like looting the country, expanding government and creating a police state for what they want, and blaming Liberals. Besides they have daughters too.
Your fear about a religious theocracy are a bit missguided and unfounded (See Baldwin statement below). Sure a party may promote such things but in knowing the laws of our land (and natural law ) I can not see how ANY true Cristian can not be religiously tollerant if they actually read their message. I think there is a lot of discrimination towards people of faith. We often get hit with attacks of "people are talking about God too much" mentality, when I have met more "godless" people in my life recently then ever before. Besides, if there is no God where do your rights come from. If God gives you your rights, man can not take them away (lawfully) if man gave you your rights they CAN take them away (legally). Even if you don't believe in God, it helps keep those who believe in worse things from gaining total control over us. But hey, reject statements like "endowed by our creator" and such at your own peril.
Also Baldwin is against the War on Drugs. Just because Ron Paul is a Republican does not mean he is a Neo-Con. The same goes with Baldwin, just because he is part of the Constitution Party does not mean he is a Theocrat. I know some Libs are a bit peaved Paul didn't endorse Barr, but hey, I wasn't going to vote for that CIA lawyer anyway!!
"And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will be no man's slave, neither will I be any man's master." - Chuck Baldwin
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (emphasis added)with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In other words, these enumerated rights come directly from God. Whilst, I grant you, there is no mention anywhere in the constitution of God, Jesus or any given specific faith, don't delude yourself into thinking that our constitutional rights and God-given (natural) rights are not inextricably bound. They are and were intended to be by the Founders.
To say that someone or a party of people are intolerant because they have the moral conviction of their faith is a misnomer. I happen to admire Chuck Baldwin and his Constitution party for their honesty and integrity. Of course, if you are that super-sensitive about religious beliefs in politics, maybe you should take a very close look at the Democratic candidate. I promise you he will never try to bind you to the constitution on religious grounds!
Posted By: Richard Randall
Date: 2008-09-24 20:29:38
While the CP and LP agree on many things, David really hits the nail on the head when it comes to describing our differences. Great job! ! Personally, I am working toward a free society. So while I hold Dr. Paul in utmost respect, I must disagree with him in supporting the CP candidate. And even though I don't consider Bob Barr the best possible libertarian candidate, I will be voting for him - and every Libertarian candidate on my ballot.
As a philosophical libertarian, I have battled the xenophobia, homophobia, and condescending moral chauvinism of the Constitutionalists at homeschool meetings across the region. This group is ultra-conservative, and it is offensive for them to be called "Constitutionalists" - in fact, the foot-soldiers would be delighted to repeal most of the Bill of Rights. I have never met a Constitutionalist who didnt hate the ACLU, turn away from police brutality, or look down their noses at protesters.
You make the same mistake of judgment as those who think that freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Are you perhaps biased against Christianity? You fail to mention in your "puzzled" opinion that Ron Paul is a faithful Christian and confesses to the doctrinal positions of the Constitution Party. Ron Paul, no doubt, is in close agreement with Chuck Baldwin on almost all political issues. After all, these two men are friends.