Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 182

Thread: The case against Chuck Baldwin...

  1. #1

    The case against Chuck Baldwin...

    Now that election day is finally drawing near, I feel compelled to update my position on Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party he is part of.

    There are people I think are great who happen to be members of the Constitution Party, Jaynee Germond, and Travis Maddox are the first two that come to mind.

    I have given my analysis of the platform itself. That can be found here:

    http://databird.com/political/vtv-co...tionparty.html

    Recently I have added a couple things to it that I will detail here. Under the comments from Thomas Jefferson, I was compelled to add the following:

    "The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

    "I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone."

    Ron Paul from "Freedom to Fascism"

    And under James Madison:

    "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

    I want to make this clear. I do not hate or even dislike Christians. And I do feel they have a right to be in the movement. But the Constitution Party favors an intrepetation of the Constitution that is not consistent with freedom.

    First of all, recently Chuck Baldwin during a debate we had on RevolutionBroadcasting.com made it clear he would fight to keep illegal drugs out of our country, using the power of the executive to do this. Even if he allows the states to make their own laws concerning drugs, this would still continue the drug war and the violence it causes. And is not respective of the rights of individuals to do with their own bodies as they like.

    Chuck Baldwin is not in favor of allowing gays to marry. His reasoning is clearly religious. The CP platform is very explicit in these things. And this position is in no way Libertarian. If the people of the Christian religion oppose gay marriage, they have the right to not perform the ceremony if they are a pastor/preist etc. And they have the right to choose not to marry someone of the same gender themselves. THEY DO NOT have the right to tell two other people what they can do with their own bodies, how they can contract with one another, or how their own religions might define marriage. If another religion permits gays to marry, then the CP position and Chuck Baldwin's position would violate the 1st amendment. Because it would prevent people of that religion from allowing gays to marry.

    The CP platform that Chuck Baldwin says he supports, and joined the party because of (And that his VP Darrell Castle sat on the platform commitee that wrote it) makes it clear that the 1st amendment gives them the right to determine what is speech and is not, according to their religion. It says the same thing about profanity. And it calls on the government to regulate the internet towards this end as well.

    I have been told over and and over again the following statements in these debates.

    "But he says he will uphold and defend the Constitution!"

    This means nothing if he believes the Constitution empowers him or his party to do what I listed above.

    "But these are states rights issues, he is running for federal office!"

    This also means nothing, as Baldwin and the CP platform have both made it clear they want to affect these changes on the Federal level as well.

    "But you vote for the man! Not the party!"

    When the man says he embraces the platform of the party, and was motivated to join the party because of it, then we do have to judge the man according to that decision. Just as we judge the Nazi party on Mein Kamph. If you say you embrace a party's platform then you are stating that platform is part of your own beliefs.

    "Don't take the platform so seriously!"

    So we are just supposed to vote for a man because of peer pressure from other people in this movement despite the fact that their platform blatantly violates the concepts of freedom?

    "But Ron Paul endorsed him! Are you going to argue with Ron Paul?"

    I love Ron Paul, but if we are to be sheeple and just do whatever he says just because he said it then I question this movement's ability to follow it's own principles. When people finally pull this card in the argument the usually wait for you to speak blasphemy of daring to disagree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul taught me to think for myself, and to make my own decisions.

    So now I am asking you to do the same. People want to know what I am worried about. Why is this so important to me?

    It is important to me because I signed on for this revolution to uphold the rights of gay people, and non-Christians, as much as Christians. Our endorsement of this man and his platform will alienate those people. And maybe it's easy for some people to cast that aside, but it is not so for me. I listen as people justify and try to tell me that these things are not important and that worries me even more still.

    The CP platform represents a mindset that is shared by the extreme Christian right. You cannot be for true religious liberty and also support that platform. What if Muslims (whom I do not dislike either, I might add) took a majority in Congress and passed a law that forced women in the United States to wear veils?

    The above arguments that I quote generally get repeated as if on a broken record and recycled over and over and over even though I had already shown them to be invalid. This also shows signs to me that this movement is losing it's way. We are not even thinking clearly if Ron Paul can say jump and we say "how high?". Shortly thereafter the Ad hominem attacks start to come. People say I am lying, or spreading disinformation yet when I challenge them to show me where, they cannot provide any examples. The hero worship is getting out of hand.

    I am not saying vote for McCain/Obama. And I am not saying vote for Barr either. Barr's voting record looks like he was part of the CP when he was in Congress. I absolutely feel people should vote third party this year. The problem is if we cast all our support behind Chuck Baldwin we are sending a message to the people that his platform alienates that they are not welcome in this movement. And I cannot abide that. At all.
    Last edited by Neil Kiernan Stephenson; 10-29-2008 at 10:12 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.
    Why is that? Do you believe the Christian religion has authority over our government?

  6. #5

  7. #6
    Well...I am for abolishing the state being involved in marriage at all. That's a goal to work for. marriage belongs to the churches. I am for common law...like it used to be. Here is my latest letter to my newspaper editor: (my local newspaper is libertarian)

    "I have noticed the uprisings against this newspaper because they said the state should get out of the marriage business.

    Marriage is based on common law...remember common law marriages? Why should the state impose a tax on marriage?

    Before the War of Northern Aggression there were no marriage licenses. A beau asked permission from the family of a gal for her hand, they set a date and went off to the church and got married. Simple.

    After the war, the issue of interracial marriages came about and the couple had to ask permission from the state to marry which imposed a fee and granted permission (a license). Rather than abolish the misegenation law, the states decided they liked the dough and forced the tax on everyone. Fair is fair, right?

    WRONG! Why must we the people be forced to enter into a contract with our spouse AND the state? Not only does this impose a tax, but it allows the state access to your finances and also your DNA (kids), but the divorce lawyers love it!

    Abolish the marriage license now! It is a violation of everyones civil rights! "

    TONEZ!

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Gee, I am sort of sorry that I donated to you.
    No qualifiers, no reasoning. Just a mild attack. Clearly I am not a candidate worthy of your support because I do not agree with Chuck Baldwin.

    I am not angry with you, but this just further proves my point.

  9. #8
    Great post, Neil. If I had any confidence in the Baldwin supporters, I'd say this should finally shut them up. But I know better.....
    Force always attracts men of low morality. – Albert Einstein

    Government is essentially the negation of liberty. – Ludwig von Mises

    The great non-sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. - Murray N. Rothbard



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tonesforjonesbones View Post
    Well...I am for abolishing the state being involved in marriage at all. That's a goal to work for. marriage belongs to the churches. I am for common law...like it used to be. Here is my latest letter to my newspaper editor: (my local newspaper is libertarian)

    "I have noticed the uprisings against this newspaper because they said the state should get out of the marriage business.

    Marriage is based on common law...remember common law marriages? Why should the state impose a tax on marriage?

    Before the War of Northern Aggression there were no marriage licenses. A beau asked permission from the family of a gal for her hand, they set a date and went off to the church and got married. Simple.

    After the war, the issue of interracial marriages came about and the couple had to ask permission from the state to marry which imposed a fee and granted permission (a license). Rather than abolish the misegenation law, the states decided they liked the dough and forced the tax on everyone. Fair is fair, right?

    WRONG! Why must we the people be forced to enter into a contract with our spouse AND the state? Not only does this impose a tax, but it allows the state access to your finances and also your DNA (kids), but the divorce lawyers love it!

    Abolish the marriage license now! It is a violation of everyones civil rights! "

    TONEZ!
    As a Libertarian I am completely for getting the state out of marriage. That would be great.

    The issue I take, is that is not what the CP asks for. What the CP platform states is that no government can acknowledge marriages that are contrary to their own religion. This being their motive I cannot abide that.

  12. #10
    I believe you do hate Christians. As long as the libertarians continue this...they will make no impact. Tones

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Brassmouth View Post
    Great post, Neil. If I had any confidence in the Baldwin supporters, I'd say this should finally shut them up. But I know better.....
    Thank you. I would hope that they could actually entertain debate on the subject. Productive debate. This issue has been driving a wedge in the movement that I fear we cannot recover from. Theocrats are coming out of the woodwork into the various chat rooms and forums that used to be secular in nature telling us that now the Ron Paul movement is theocratic. And if we are not, then we don't belong here.

  14. #12
    I would rather work to abolish the state being involved in marriage . I consider marriage to be a religious institution not a state thing. tones

  15. #13
    Can you point me to the actual quotes that you are referring to? I am a Christian, and I was planning on voting for Baldwin, but I am disturbed by the allegations you have made. I would like to research this matter more before I make a final decision. Links would be great...

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by tonesforjonesbones View Post
    I believe you do hate Christians. As long as the libertarians continue this...they will make no impact. Tones
    I do not hate Christians. This is another one of those ad hominem attacks that always comes next.

    Please explain to me what data you have that states that I hate Christians? Me asking that I not be forced to live according to laws based in Christianity is not me saying I hate Christians.

    I don't hate Muslim's either, but I don't wish to be forced to live my life according to their doctrine, and I doubt you do either.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendi View Post
    Can you point me to the actual quotes that you are referring to? I am a Christian, and I was planning on voting for Baldwin, but I am disturbed by the allegations you have made. I would like to research this matter more before I make a final decision. Links would be great...
    http://databird.com/political/vtv-co...tionparty.html

    Wendi some time ago I made this report. I was motivated to do so based on the statements that Chuck made during interviews and debates on RevolutionBroadcasting.com

    1. "I have no problem with the platform, I support the platform and joined the party because of it."

    Chuck Baldwin when asked about the Constitution Party Platform.

    2. "I will support the defense of marriage act, and will never allow marriage to be defined as anything other then between a man and a women."

    Chuck Baldwin during the recent debate on RevolutionBroadcasting when the issue of gay marriage was broached.

    3. "I will do everything within my power as President to keep these illegal drugs out of our country."

    Chuck Baldwin in that same debate.

    4. "I support the Constitution Party platform and was on the comitee that wrote the platform."

    Darrell Castle when the subject of the Constitution party platform was brought up in an interview on RevolutionBroadcasting.

    You can research the CP platform on their site. If you find anything inaccurate in my report please let me know.
    Last edited by Neil Kiernan Stephenson; 10-29-2008 at 10:28 AM.

  18. #16
    great post.
    i agree wholeheartedly... i believe Ron Paul would be disappointed if we BLINDLY followed his endorsement and went against what we believe as individuals...
    i am an agnostic and i couldn't live with myself supporting a Theocratic Platform, any more than if i supported "McBama"...
    i joined this rEVOLution as and 'independent", re-registered as a Republican (mostly to vote for Dr. Paul) but I'm more and more realizing that I'm a Libertarian at heart!



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Kiernan Stephenson View Post
    Why is that? Do you believe the Christian religion has authority over our government?
    Neil, I don't know who you are or the office for which you ran. Your response is illogical, snappy, and overly defensive.

    Just because someone is sorry they donated to you doesn't mean they are a theocrat. A false dichotomy is a poor way to change someone's mind, but it is a good way to show your lack of interest in honest discussion.
    "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."- Andrew Jackson (The Guy on the 20)

    www.micahnelson.com

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by micahnelson View Post
    Neil, I don't know who you are or the office for which you ran. Your response is illogical, snappy, and overly defensive.

    Just because someone is sorry they donated to you doesn't mean they are a theocrat. A false dichotomy is a poor way to change someone's mind, but it is a good way to show your lack of interest in honest discussion.

    I think you are adding venom where there is none. I am not angry as I clarify later. I want an explanation. There is nothing illogical in my questioning her as to her position when you consider that she said it in response to my post.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Kiernan Stephenson View Post
    I think you are adding venom where there is none. I am not angry as I clarify later. I want an explanation. There is nothing illogical in my questioning her as to her position when you consider that she said it in response to my post.
    Perhaps, I just get tired of people jumping to conclusions and painting people into corners where they may not belong. It comes across as smugness, and it does little to your credibility.

    If you truly meant no malice, then I apologize for jumping to my own conclusions.
    "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."- Andrew Jackson (The Guy on the 20)

    www.micahnelson.com

  23. #20
    We must have a moral society or it will become Babylon..is that what you want? Christianity was the glue. The founders knew it. Jefferson's bible fully advocated the Teachings of jesus...he just took out the miracles. I believe in them...but the Teachings of jesus is what I try to follow. The communists knew they had to destroy christianity in the USA to acheive takeover. What they have done is minimized the fact that the founders were christians...and honored christianity...to brainwash people to believe we should be a state of no religion. They have pushed the "separation of church and state" which is nowhere in the constitution. Due to religious persecution, people migrated here so they could practice their religion. If the framers didn't consider religion important...why is the issue of religion the FIRST thing on the list of the Bill of Rights?

    "CONGress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"

    If you keep pushing religion out of government aren't you prohibiting the free exercise of it??? Tones

  24. #21
    If you keep pushing religion out of government aren't you prohibiting the free exercise of it??? Tones
    The issue I, and many others, have is that certain groups feel they have the right to spread the word of Christ through any means they can and they use the government itself in an attempt to force their beliefs upon non-Christians. This is why the founders said that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

    I believe that all those pushing for Christianity in government policies would feel differently if it was Judiasm or Islam or Wicca or Bhuddism.

    The government should honor and allow the free expression of all religions while at the same time holding favor to none.
    Last edited by John E; 10-29-2008 at 11:24 AM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by tonesforjonesbones View Post
    We must have a moral society or it will become Babylon..is that what you want? Christianity was the glue. The founders knew it. Jefferson's bible fully advocated the Teachings of jesus...he just took out the miracles. I believe in them...but the Teachings of jesus is what I try to follow. The communists knew they had to destroy christianity in the USA to acheive takeover. What they have done is minimized the fact that the founders were christians...and honored christianity...to brainwash people to believe we should be a state of no religion. They have pushed the "separation of church and state" which is nowhere in the constitution. Due to religious persecution, people migrated here so they could practice their religion. If the framers didn't consider religion important...why is the issue of religion the FIRST thing on the list of the Bill of Rights?

    "CONGress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"

    If you keep pushing religion out of government aren't you prohibiting the free exercise of it??? Tones
    No.

    However if we allow any religion to make laws to govern the way that others will live their lives then we are prohibiting others from making those choices for themselves then we are not pushing for freedom.

    Are you suggesting by this post that you are in favor of a theocratic government?

    Separation of church and state IS in the constitution.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

    If that is not plain enough, then take Jefferson's statement about this.

    "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

    This states in plain English that Jefferson believed that the 1st amendment established the wall between Church and state.

    Further:

    "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government.”

    This further drives the point home.

    In addition, you must consider Madison's notes on the Bill of rights:

    Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register, Madison, on June 8, moved that

    "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

    This makes it clear that nobody's rights should be abridged on the account of religious belief or worship. This means that your religious beliefs cannot be used to abridge my civil rights. Or the civil rights of gay people, or the civil rights of those who might say or watch something that your religious belief considers to be profane.

    It all comes back to this statement made by Jefferson:

    "The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

    It does you no injury for someone else to have the right to marry in a way that is not in accordance with your religious beliefs. It does you no injury for someone to say or watch things your religion does not agree with. However it WOULD do that person injury if you were permitted to infringe on their rights to do so.

    "I like the old idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone."

    Ron Paul- "Freedom to Fascism"

    We do not need Christianity to have a good and moral society. Or any other religion for that matter. My children are not going to be raised Christian, but they will still grow up to be good and honest people even without the threat of eternity in a lake of fire for "wickedness" or any other religion's version of hell. They will be good people because I taught them to be.

    The rights of human beings, and the concept of equality can be established through LOGIC.

  26. #23
    We do not need Christianity to have a good and moral society. Or any other religion for that matter. My children are not going to be raised Christian, but they will still grow up to be good and honest people even without the threat of eternity in a lake of fire for "wickedness" or any other religion's version of hell. They will be good people because I taught them to be.
    well said

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Kiernan Stephenson View Post
    Why is that? Do you believe the Christian religion has authority over our government?
    Since you asked, I believe you should be spending more time on your campaign and less time worrying about his.

    I like Chuck Baldwin better than I like the CP platform, that's for sure. But I like Chuck Baldwin. Get over it.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    oi vey...
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshLowry View Post
    Yongrel can post whatever he wants as long as it isn't porn.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Brassmouth View Post
    Great post, Neil. If I had any confidence in the Baldwin supporters, I'd say this should finally shut them up.
    You mean supporters like Ron Paul?

    The Baldwin supporters are actually pretty subdued. It's the anti-religion ...oops! I mean the anti-Baldwin crowd that is fanatical about randomly, aggressively and sporadically shouting their beliefs from their soapbox.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  31. #27
    So do i still vote for Baldwin? Hmmm? We are running out of choices here...

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Since you asked, I believe you should be spending more time on your campaign and less time worrying about his.

    I like Chuck Baldwin better than I like the CP platform, that's for sure. But I like Chuck Baldwin. Get over it.

    You did not answer the question at all. Do you believe that the Christian religion should have authority over our government?

    If you like Chuck Baldwin, you should probably consider the fact that he has made it plain that he likes, and agrees with the CP platform. This would make it kind of difficult to like him more the the CP platform.

    I have nothing to "get over".

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    You mean supporters like Ron Paul?

    The Baldwin supporters are actually pretty subdued. It's the anti-religion ...oops! I mean the anti-Baldwin crowd that is fanatical about randomly, aggressively and sporadically shouting their beliefs from their soapbox.
    I don't think we are anti-religion. We are anti-being forced to live according to someone else's religion.

  34. #30
    i wish i lived in the 10th of Michigan so i could vote for Neil... i like this guy!

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 10:15 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 03:04 PM
  3. Chuck Baldwin Follows the CP
    By G-Wohl in forum Rally for the Republic
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 08:57 AM
  4. Chuck baldwin on now
    By Hamer in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 07:18 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 06:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •