PDA

View Full Version : Forget Bob Barr. . .The REVOLUTION needs Chuck Baldwin




Stallion
04-15-2008, 02:11 PM
Every four years, conservative “pragmatists” trot out the “We Can’t Let So-And-So Win” mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called “conservative” Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different.

This year’s Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and “gay rights.” To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall.

So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John “McSame” McCain.

Let’s be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one.

On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to “family values” voters. He is no friend to America’s blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration.

On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism.

But this is where the Boogeyman comes in.

At this point, Republican Party lackeys will break in and say, “We can’t let Hillary Clinton win. We can’t let Barack Obama win.” Even the favored son of the Religious Right, Mike Huckabee, has endorsed John McCain, not to mention Mitt Romney and virtually every other Republican “bigwig.” (Thank God, Ron Paul has maintained his integrity by NOT endorsing McCain.)

I, for one, am fed up with this baloney, because what we are actually faced with is not the “lesser of two evils” but “the evil of two lessers.” (To quote a good friend of mine.) And the reason John McCain would actually be a worse President than either Obama or Clinton is because of the manner in which conservatives go to sleep whenever a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Furthermore, the next couple of years are “crunch time” for this burgeoning North American Union and related issues.

America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country’s independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and “free trade” deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery. And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance. If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs. So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain.

I realize that there are many readers shouting to themselves right now and saying, “So what do we do, Chuck? We have to vote for one or the other.” To which I say, No you don’t. You can think outside the box. You don’t have to throw your vote away on either of these wretched candidates. You can cast a vote for principle and vote for a third party candidate.

I can hear readers screaming at me now, saying that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I strongly disagree! Casting a vote for a person who you know is unfaithful to your principles is a wasted vote! Voting for someone who you know will keep our borders and ports open to illegals, continue George Bush’s preemptive war doctrine, and facilitate a burgeoning hemispheric government—not to mention someone who will increase and augment a burgeoning Orwellian police state—is a wasted vote!

At some point, we Americans must decide whether we will tolerate the continued sellout of our freedoms and principles or not. Will we swallow the shallow squeals of the establishment elite who think we are a bunch of sheep to be herded into their New World Order? Or will we stand our ground? Will we vote our principles and our conscience?

It does not matter that the pundits and experts say we can’t win. That is not our business. As John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” When will Christians, especially, quit trying to play politics and start standing for principle? They talk a lot about principle, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, most don’t act like people of principle.

If God intends to give America another chance, if He intends to return these United States to constitutional government, and if He intends to preserve America’s independence, it will only come in the form of a miracle. And miracles do not happen by the machinations of pragmatic planners. Miracles are just that.

America was born a miracle, and it could now be given a new birth by miracle. If so, it would demand that people of principle start acting like it. That we cast aside the pragmatic, the reasonable, the sophisticated, and the expected. That we—as did the priests of old—would be willing to step out into the raging current of the Jordan River, knowing that either God would part the water or we would drown. That we would be willing to sign our names to a document—as did our Founding Fathers—that would make us either the enemies of the state or the inventors of a new nation. It means taking risks; it means doing the impractical; it means rejecting accepted wisdom and standing for principle.

I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now. And I am expecting God to grant such a miracle. Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who “has no chance of winning” in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do. So, who will join me?
I really hope the CP does the right thing and nominates Chuck Baldwin. Than we can stick it to that narcissistic opportunist Barr by donating to Pastor Chuck and spreading the message that the American people have a real choice on the ballot in November. :)

crazyfingers
04-15-2008, 02:12 PM
I really hope the CP does the right thing and nominates Chuck Baldwin. Than we can stick it to that narcissistic opportunist Barr by donating to Pastor Chuck and spreading the message that the American people have a real choice on the ballot in November. :)

How many states' ballots is the CP on, anyway?

Kotin
04-15-2008, 02:14 PM
i do really like Chuck Baldwin. i would support him over barr any day..


hes a really interesting guy.

Stallion
04-15-2008, 02:14 PM
How many states' ballots is the CP on, anyway?

At the moment 15, but I think I read somewhere that they plan to be on the ballot in 40+ by November. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that...

Lovecraftian4Paul
04-15-2008, 02:19 PM
From what I've read of Baldwin, he himself seems to be a well spoken guy with the right positions. I'm leery of the Constitution Party though, since it attracts at least as many theocratic Huckabee types as it does Constitutionalists. Perhaps with Baldwin and a contingent of Ron Paul supporters coming over, the CP could be tweaked for the better.

If more garbage comes out about Barr, Ron Paul loses the GOP contest, and there's no one better, I will definitely consider Baldwin in November. I just hope the Constitution Party doesn't shoot itself in the foot by putting that neo-con fraud Alan Keyes anywhere on the ticket. He should not be President or VP under any circumstances, unless he comes around and renounces his support for interventionism and the Iraq War.

Stallion
04-15-2008, 02:23 PM
From what I've read of Baldwin, he himself seems to be a well spoken guy with the right positions. I'm leery of the Constitution Party though, since it attracts at least as many theocratic Huckabee types as it does Constitutionalists. Perhaps with Baldwin and a contingent of Ron Paul supporters coming over, the CP could be tweaked for the better.

If more garbage comes out about Barr, Ron Paul loses the GOP contest, and there's no one better, I will definitely consider Baldwin in November. I just hope the Constitution Party doesn't shoot itself in the foot by putting that neo-con fraud Alan Keyes anywhere on the ticket. He should not be President or VP under any circumstances, unless he comes around and renounces his support for interventionism and the Iraq War.

I've read over the CP's platform and it sounds almost like it could have been written by Ron Paul himself. I know there are the Huckabee and Keyes supporter types that call the CP home, but it seems to me that the majority of Constitutionalists are Libertarians at heart.

BuddyRey
04-18-2008, 07:54 AM
I don't know...the Constitution Party scares the Hell outta me (no pun intended). A lot of what they endorse isn't constitutional at all (banning pornography, gambling, gay marriage, etc.). I don't know about you guys, but any political party that promises to "protect" fully-grown adults from other cultures and minor societal annoyances warrants at least a raised eyebrow of incredulity from yours truly, if not my most mocking surreptitious laughter.

Stallion
04-18-2008, 09:35 AM
I don't know...the Constitution Party scares the Hell outta me (no pun intended). A lot of what they endorse isn't constitutional at all (banning pornography, gambling, gay marriage, etc.). I don't know about you guys, but any political party that promises to "protect" fully-grown adults from other cultures and minor societal annoyances warrants at least a raised eyebrow of incredulity from yours truly, if not my most mocking surreptitious laughter.

From the CP website:

On pornography:

While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.
To understand the position, you must understand that Christians view the production and distribution of pornography as sinful and harmful to society, much like murder, theft, vandalism, etc. and inherently wrong. We have laws against those other things, thus obscenity laws are justified. This is how they reconcile the position with the Constitution.

On gambling:

We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.
There is nothing unconstitutional about this. In short, they believe that the federal government should have no involvement in the gambling industry and that states and local governments should have the final say on tribal casinos.

On gay marriage:

Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.
Being opposed to legislation that recognizes gay marriages is not the same as wanting to "ban gay marriage" as you suggest. Ron Paul believes that marriage should be sanctioned by the church, not the federal government. Does that mean that he wants to "ban" gay marriage as well?

The CP is as close to RP's views as any party out there, the LP included.

tonyr1988
04-18-2008, 11:17 AM
From the CP website:

On pornography:

To understand the position, you must understand that Christians view the production and distribution of pornography as sinful and harmful to society, much like murder, theft, vandalism, etc. and inherently wrong. We have laws against those other things, thus obscenity laws are justified. This is how they reconcile the position with the Constitution.

That's in conflict with the position of libertarians - murder, theft, and vandalism aren't harmful to society, they're harmful to other individuals, directly. There is no such thing as something being harmful to the collective "us." Pornography isn't directly harmful to anyone else; therefore, under the libertarian mindset, it shouldn't be regulated.

I don't think you can equate the two categories, because one is harmful to "society" and the other is harmful to individuals.

Aratus
04-18-2008, 12:31 PM
there is a hollywood aspected faction of the electorate who might
misguidedly think they are voting for the baldwin brother who recently
found God and a highly moral lifestyle! of course we know chuck baldwin
is not the witty guy who was on the celebrity apprentice very recently!

james1906
04-18-2008, 01:42 PM
From the CP website:


On gambling:

There is nothing unconstitutional about this. In short, they believe that the federal government should have no involvement in the gambling industry and that states and local governments should have the final say on tribal casinos.


Ironic, considering a reservation is a local government.

Stallion
04-18-2008, 02:24 PM
Ironic, considering a reservation is a local government.

You know, you're right. I stand corrected. I guess the truly constitutional approach to this topic would be to allow the reservations to do whatever they want when it comes to tribal casinos. hmph. good point.

Shotdown1027
04-28-2008, 12:16 PM
Stallion,

We do believe that the reservations can decide for themselves. But often, tribes within other states (i.e. they arent their own government) are granted gambling rights. Here in LA,we have several different tribes who are under their county government--but they have been granted certain rights about casinos. So its not inconsistent.

Baldwin is a great choice.

Shotdown1027
04-28-2008, 12:18 PM
As for the CP, it's "theocratic" elements have declined drastically since 2006. Ron Paul-types have dramatically increased. Also, many former theocratic types were CONVERTED by Paul,and are now more liberty-loving. Chuck Baldwin basically casted himself as a Ron Paul surrogate,and won 3-to-1.

JMann
04-28-2008, 03:23 PM
Chuckie hasn't held political office before which would disqualify him from getting my vote. If you haven't demonstrated that you can be a political administrator or legislator I would never even consider voting for ya.

The problem with most 3rd party people is that they run for purely selfish reason without building a public service resume.

Shotdown1027
04-28-2008, 05:44 PM
If you haven't demonstrated that you can be a political administrator or legislator I would never even consider voting for ya.

Really? If someone hasnt been on the government teet, I see that as a plus.

scandinaviany3
04-29-2008, 11:41 AM
Really? If someone hasnt been on the government teet, I see that as a plus.

This is a huge plus...lead a large church, online business for talking to america about liberty..ie the good rush limbaugh...

vp candidate for cp in the past.

We need a president like in that movie dave or a jimmy stewart type that cares about the people and is without question honest.

We know the other clowns are as dark as can be in these areas....

That is the desperate need for a paul or baldwin in office.

I am still holding out that ron will change his mind, he is the only person keeping us from having baldwin and paul on the ticket together.

Shotdown1027
04-29-2008, 11:53 AM
Ron Paul has categorically ruled out running third party, becuase the RNC is in September, and he wants to give his National Delegates an opportunity to vote for him,and hopefully give his speech on stage. We were hoping to draft him as our nominee, but he made it clear he would not agree to it, and suggested that Baldwin was a VERY good surrogate.

scandinaviany3
04-29-2008, 12:02 PM
called paul family to confirm no chance until post september for ron to change his mind.

By then it will be too late to be ready all at once.

We must lay the groundwork and then step it up.

Bison
04-30-2008, 09:24 PM
Laying the ground work should include helping Chuck and the CP gain Ballot access in your state.

Real_CaGeD
05-01-2008, 05:59 AM
I called Bob 3 weeks before super tuesday and asked the secretary, "When will Bob stump for Ron?". The secretaries reply was, "We dont know who the best candidate is yet."

My reply was, "There has not been a good vote in Washington that wasnt NO in a long time".

Shotdown1027
05-01-2008, 09:05 AM
Real_Caged,

Exactly. Bob Barr sat on his hands during the R(EVOL)UTION. Baldwin went all out, donating, writing on Paul's behalf, formally endorsing him, speaking to pastors in Iowa and SC, and recording a TV ad.

scandinaviany3
05-01-2008, 09:07 AM
Real_Caged,

Exactly. Bob Barr sat on his hands during the R(EVOL)UTION. Baldwin went all out, donating, writing on Paul's behalf, formally endorsing him, speaking to pastors in Iowa and SC, and recording a TV ad.

Actually Baldwin recorded several ads for ron paul.

He was given a lot of heat over it...but he did what he knew he had to do.

Just as he does now...being faithful matters...

Where were the other candidates when Ron most needed them??????

scandinaviany3
05-01-2008, 09:20 AM
i do really like Chuck Baldwin. i would support him over barr any day..


hes a really interesting guy.


Agreed but i dont think we all need to get into a barr vs baldwin battle until donations for both are above 5 million!

I think Ron needs to put his input into this to help as well.


I hear against Barr

-abortion question with his wife. But i also was told that there was medical cancer circumstances where two lives were at risk and chemo would have lost the baby anyway. This story needs confirming but he need to be quick to listen/research and slow to be attacking on these types of issues.
-CIA background a lot of people dont trust
-his personal image comes across negative and has said bad things at times against Dr. Paul

I hear against Baldwin

-he is a theocrat---only cares about religious issues because he is a pastor


Other than the possible communication issue by Barr, which any good campaign manager would work out with him, we would be out of our minds to challenge either of these guys records with troll like bigotry and give our enemies in the CFR/NWO any advantage.

Rather than attacking two liberty candidates we need to do everything in our power to promote them and dent the democrats and republicans.

Ladies and gentleman we still dont have texas or oklahoma ballot access for either candidate.

We should be focused on doing this for both Baldwin and Barr.

After we reserve the tough states, have a couple million in initial donations then market forces will kick in, conventions will have happened, strategic meeting will occur and a sensible road map will lead us forward.

Shotdown1027
05-01-2008, 10:18 AM
Baldwin is NOT a theocrat. In his acceptance speech he said somethingabout howthe nation would be saved by Christians and non-christians, blacks and whites, buddhists and muslims---individuals who love and embrace freedom.

Not what id call a theocrat.

fr33domfightr
05-13-2008, 10:58 PM
The candidate who is more well known has the better chance of winning. If it's Barr, then he has a better chance. After all this vetting going on in the race, I don't believe the American people will vote for an unknown, or not well known. RP ran into this as you all well know.

FF

Bradley in DC
05-13-2008, 11:20 PM
Bob Barr sat on his hands during the R(EVOL)UTION. Baldwin went all out, donating, writing on Paul's behalf, formally endorsing him, speaking to pastors in Iowa and SC, and recording a TV ad.

As a member of the LNC, Barr not only did what he could within those restraints but got the LP to lift some restraints and help Dr. Paul's efforts.

Efforts to promote Baldwin by tearing down others just makes Baldwin look bad. ;)

idiom
05-13-2008, 11:36 PM
They would still be better of in Congress working as a voting faction, running around as super delegates and generally being effective.

tajitj
05-14-2008, 03:59 PM
Check out his acceptance speech.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5808710975074355086&hl=en

yaz
05-14-2008, 04:09 PM
Baldwin can have support from Ron Paul supporters and Huckabee supporters so I think he has great potential.

eloquensanity
05-17-2008, 01:42 PM
Baldwin can have support from Ron Paul supporters and Huckabee supporters so I think he has great potential.

Apparently, at least from what I have heard a lot of Huckabee supporters are still upset about the articles he wrote, comparing Dr Paul (a walk the walk Christian) and Huckabee (a talk the talk Christian).

I think that a lot of Huckabee supporters will choose McCain. JMO

LibertyEagle
05-17-2008, 03:39 PM
I called Bob 3 weeks before super tuesday and asked the secretary, "When will Bob stump for Ron?". The secretaries reply was, "We dont know who the best candidate is yet."



You're kidding.:confused: That really ticks me off that he did that. He damn well knew who was the best candidate. :mad:

Lovecraftian4Paul
05-17-2008, 03:50 PM
Yeah, too bad the effort to get the CP and LP together this time seems to have failed. The only one who could've provided unity would've been Ron Paul. Baldwin impressed me by sticking his neck out for Ron Paul from early on, but unfortunately, the Constitution Party lacks the resources and infrastructure of the LP, and carries an unsettling religious undercurrent.

Until we get a better idea of what things really will look like for the November election, I guess we can only wish both Baldwin and the LP well and hope they get tons of votes. If the CP and LP combined can wrack up several million votes (Nader 2000 status or better, where he got about three million), then at least our movement will have made a tiny blip on the radar in November, even without Ron Paul as our candidate. And that's really all it takes to anchor some media coverage. Nader only managed less than 3% in 2000, yet gains obsessive mention ever since because of his "spoiler" role.

yongrel
05-17-2008, 03:53 PM
It was only a mater of time before the Baldwin vs. Barr levee broke.

Great.

Just donate to BJ Lawson, ok?