Chuck Baldwin on Roy Moore

Chuck Baldwin has a new column up across the web. He has certainly gained many followers through his support of Ron Paul, and his articles can easily be found all over the web. Here is the important part:

That leaves The Constitution Party as the only political party with the courage and convictions to set the ship of state aright. With someone such as Judge Roy Moore at the helm, true Christians and constitutionalists would at least have an opportunity to vote for someone in November without being forced to hold their noses and surrender their principles.

Baldwin has been identified as a frontrunner for the nomination, but seems all-too-eager to step aside for Judge Roy Moore.

49 Responses to “Chuck Baldwin on Roy Moore”

  1. bucko158 Says:

    Moore would get no attention at all. He got completely smoked in his run for governor. Baldwin should run.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    Moore attained 35% against a very popular incumbent.

    He’d easily get at least 1-2% in all southern states and 3-10% in Alabama.

    Baldwin,on the otherhand, wouldnt achieve much—-but would be a good standard bearer.

  3. G.E. Says:

    Okay, I take back every nice thing I ever said about Chuck Baldwin. He’s just like all the rest.

  4. G.E. Says:

    That said, I think Moore would do a LOT better than Trent is postulating.

  5. Dave Williams Says:

    “With someone such as Judge Roy Moore at the helm, true Christians and constitutionalists would at least have an opportunity to vote for someone in November without being forced to hold their noses and surrender their principles.”

    I need more GOD in my life…will someone please elect this man so that I can have more GOD. I don’t have enough GOD. We need to make the constitution more GODly. I need the license plates on my cars to say GOD on them because I don’t want to forget that I need more GOD in my poor pathetic existence. And can we stop printing GOD on the side of our coins, GOD needs to be displayed on the front of the coins. I need GOD to keep me from jerking off to much (these stroke blisters on my hands are killing me). I need to pray in public places and say the Pledge of Allegiance all the while knowing that it’s been sanctioned by none other than GOD him/her/itself. I need GOD down at the DMV or over at the courthouse so that right as I walk into the building, I’ll know that GOD is there also. GOD GOD GOD

  6. Andy Says:

    There were a lot of good points in that article by Chuck Baldwin.

  7. Kevin Thompson Says:

    I still believe Chuck Baldwin himself would be our party’s best nominee. Roy Moore isn’t even a member of the Constitution Party. Run, Chuck, Run!

  8. Laura Says:

    Bob Riley a popular incumbant! What a lie! Everyone in Alabama can’t stand the liar! Moore did poorly because he ran poorly. He also did poorly because the dems who would have voted for him in the primary decided to vote for local dem races instead.

    Chuck Baldwin would get more votes than Roy Moore. If Roy Moore is the CP candidate it will be easy to vote LP.

  9. Red Phillips Says:

    Dave, I see the village atheist has arrived.

    From what little I know, Roy Moore did run poorly. But I also blame the “conservative” GOP voters of Alabama. They wussed out.

    Chuck Baldwin does seem reluctant to me. Maybe he is just being overly gracious.

  10. SovereignMN Says:

    G.E. can you elaborate at how Baldwin is “just like the rest”.

    I wish he would have done a better job of explaining why Moore would be the best choice and how he came to that conclusion. Perhaps that is for a later column. I personally liked his last paragraph.

    “It will not be conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, Christians or unbelievers that restore America. It will be individuals from all walks of life, all backgrounds, and all political persuasions who love liberty enough to fight to maintain it.”

  11. Sean Scallon Says:

    If Moore runs ca camapaign based upon Constitutional renewal given his judicial background, he can drawn in new activists to the party already energized by Ron Paul’s campaign. He could especially be helpful buidling the party in the South which is a hard place for non-major parties to operate. Hopeful;ly he can be the biggest vote-getter for the CP on the Presidential level.

  12. Red Phillips Says:

    SovereignMN, G.E. thinks Baldwin is “just like the rest” because he believes in God and supports other candidates who do also. What a scandal.

  13. BillTX Says:

    Dave Williams:

    God Bless You. MaGODy You HaGODve a GODly Day.

  14. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    Roy Moore is a sanctimonious opportunist. He wants to sit on God’s throne and judge in His place.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    “That said, I think Moore would do a LOT better than Trent is postulating.”

    GE—that is probably true. Im lowering my assumptions becuase, perhaps to lower my own expectations. You’ve got to remember that in this sort of situation, the Republican party is going to aim alot of money at defeating Moore.

    With that said—-A Roy Moore candidacy is something im excited about,and something that could win electoral votes and well over a million votes.

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    I must admit, I would personally favor Chuck Baldwin over Roy Moore if I had to choose between the two.

  17. Stephen Gordon Says:

    1) Moore ran a crappy campaign against an incumbent unpopular GOP Governor who had recently been defeated 2-1 on a major statewide tax increase scheme.

    2) Moore was grandstanding on the 10 Commandments issue during the debate over the proposed tax increase. We could get national television down to Montgomery to discuss a silly rock, but not the tax increase.

    3) As what point does all of the attention to a rock become idol worship?

    You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…

    4) Moore never endorsed Ron Paul.

    5) On a serious political note, does anyone know if Moore is for or against the Iraq War?

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    “I must admit, I would personally favor Chuck Baldwin over Roy Moore if I had to choose between the two.”

    Cody—that is dumb. Baldwin and Moore agree on basically every issue.

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    1.) I’ve heard Moore’s campaign was run crappily, Stephen—and I believe it. I’v also heard that while the governor was unpopular shortly after the tax increase, his popularity was sky-rocketing during his campaign against Moore.

    2.) Moore was using the issue that brought him national attention—though I agree that he should have done some talking on the tax issue. If/when he runs for the CP, he’ll be expected to cover a wide-range of issues.

    3.) The Rock is unimportant. What destruction of Federalism it stands for is more important.

    4.) Moore did not endorse Paul—nor anyone else.

    5.) Moore is opposed to the War in Iraq,though it’ll be hard to find any proof of that. If/when he declares,you’ll see.

  20. Laura Says:

    Boy that’s leadership for you - refuses to endorse anyone and one can’t find proof of Moore’s views on the the War in Iraq. That’s leadership I can’t get behind. Moore showed more leadership when he ran for the Alabama Supreme Court than he shows these days.

    By the way, Bob Riley’s popularity may have been rising with the GOP hacks but it certainly wasn’t rising with the common man.

    Baldwin is far superior than Moore in leadership alone even if they do agree on all the issues.

  21. SovereignMN Says:

    Trent said: “Cody—that is dumb. Baldwin and Moore agree on basically every issue.”

    Even though this wasn’t addressed to me I think Cody’s point is fair and valid.
    1) Baldwin has proven that he is committed to building the CP. To my knowledge Moore has been a member of the party.
    2) Baldwin isn’t as controversial. Moore has the name recognition that Baldwin doesn’t but his negatives are also very high (see Alan Keyes)
    3) Baldwin and Moore may agree on every issue (I don’t necessarily buy that but for the sake of argument I’ll grant it to you) but Baldwin has proven he can articulate a more wide array of issues more clearly.

  22. Michael Seebeck Says:

    I’m no expert on the CP, so call this a “drive-by” opinion.

    I’ve read a lot of Baldwin’s columns lately. I’ve never seen nor heard him speak, but judging by his writing he appears to be very intelligent and articulate, and most importantly. he knows when to turn up and down the religion volume when it’s appropriate.

    I’ve folllowed Roy Moore for years. The man is nucking futs. He may agree with Baldwin on most everything, but he has the presentation and articulation skills of General Sherman marching through Georgia—no tact or discretion.

    If I were CP and given that choice, I’d take Baldwin hands down.

  23. Trent Hill Says:

    “Boy that’s leadership for you - refuses to endorse anyone and one can’t find proof of Moore’s views on the the War in Iraq. That’s leadership I can’t get behind.”

    Moore didnt endorse anyone,likely because he was considering a candidacy of his own—this is common. Look at Walter Jones or Paul Broun—both good men, both didnt endorse anyone.

    As for his views on the War in Iraq cant be found anywhere because he’s only run for State Office. Similar to Mark Sanford.

    However—you may all be right about campaigning skills, I hadnt considered that.

  24. Red Phillips Says:

    Michael, Moore is not “nuts” whatever that means. (You don’t agree with him politically or you think he is mentally ill. I suspect the former.) I have heard his one to one campaign skills are not that good.

    Every God fearing conservative should admire Moore for his courage in standing up to the Federal leviathan, but he somewhat misplayed the issue IMO. It wasn’t just a matter of being able to acknowledge God as the ultimate source of law, but it was also a matter of who gets to decide these things (State vs. Federal) and the right interpretation of the First Amendment.

  25. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    Roy Moore demagogues religion in the same way that George Wallace demagogued race for part of his career.

    It is simply a way to get him attention and power, end of story.

    The idolatrous rock was no different than the stand in ths schoolhouse door.

    Standing up to the federal leviathan is far less admirable when it is done on behalf of state tyranny - whether that takes the form of segregation laws or religious bigotry.

  26. SovereignMN Says:

    Sherlock…do you consider it “religious bigotry” for the Supreme Court to display the 10 commandments?

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    Sherlock,

    Lots of comparisons can be derived between George Wallace and Roy Moore—someone ought to write a book.

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    More importantly Sherlock, is it religious bigotry to put up a 10 commandments statue when there is a statue of the greek goddess Themis 20 ft away.

  29. Red Phillips Says:

    Sherlock, the Ten Commandments are not religious bigotry, whatever that is supposed to mean. That is just ridiculous.

    And how do you know what Moore’s motivation was? Are you suggesting he is not a real Christian who is concerned rampant secularism? On what do you base that conclusion?

  30. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    The rock idolatry is actually the least of Moore’s bigotry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore#D.H._vs._H.H.

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    BTW: This article has hit at least 7 blogs with over 1000 visitors per day as well as RonPaulForums, NewsWithViews, several CP state sites.

    And its only been one day.

  32. Red Phillips Says:

    Sherlock, the Constitution says nothing that would disallow the State of Alabama from considering homosexuality in a custody matter. So it is “bigotry” to think that kids shouldn’t be placed with people openly practicing homosexuality?

    It is people like you who wear their open hostility to Christianity and traditional moral values on their sleeves that makes me think we need someone like Moore all the more.

  33. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    March 11th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
    More importantly Sherlock, is it religious bigotry to put up a 10 commandments statue when there is a statue of the greek goddess Themis 20 ft away.”

    Good point, Trent. Government buildings are actually filled with all kinds of disturbing images.

  34. Dave Williams Says:

    You know ole Dan Patrick my State Senator…he was pretty darn proud about getting GOD back into the government…what a fucking waste of a vote and waste of my tax dime.

  35. Red Phillips Says:

    Is disrespecting Christianity and flaunting one’s irreligiosity some sort of sport around here? Make sure you throw in a few cuss words as well. Better to prove what free thinkers you are unencumbered by the wisdom of the ages and the normal conventions of polite discourse.

  36. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    It is people like you who wear their open hostility to Christianity

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    Show me anything I have said against Christianity.

    On the other hand, Roy Moore practices rock idolatry, presumes to judge in the place of God, and then there’s this…

    Matthew 6

    Prayer

    5”And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

  37. Red Phillips Says:

    Well the use of the term religious “bigotry” to describe support of posting the Ten Commandments and the implication that homosexuality is an illegitimate issue (“bigotry”) in a custody case would be my first clues. Last I check, Christianity and the Bible explicitly condemned homosexuality as a sin. Are you suggesting that a Bible believing Christian can think homosexuality is OK? It is kind of hard to get past those verses explicitly condemning the act isn’t it?

    No one is worshipping a rock. The issue is that posting the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court is not a violation of the First Amendment as the Federal Court wrongly and illegitimately decided. Moore was brave and right to defy the illegitimate court order. It is a shame that fewer so-called conservatives and Christians supported him.

  38. Ben Says:

    The question is not in how Judge Moore presented his argument, but rather how others chose to paraphrase the case. Groups like Wall Builders and Navigators presented it as an acknowledgement of God in the public sqaure. Other groups such as the LoS and the IOTC presented it as a state’s rights issue. As best as I can tell, Moore’s argument was that he was free to express his faith and that it was an Alabama issue whether he was wrong or not, and not a federal one. The voters of Alabama voted for him as Chief Justice of their Supreme Court after he had the reputation of the “Ten Commandments Judge.” He even stated that he wanted to place a monument to the 10 Commandments in the Judicial Bldg. while he was campaigning. The monument was no surprise to the voters in Alabama.

  39. Dave Williams Says:

    Red,

    If the bible says gay people are sinners, why should the followers be concerned about other peoples life styles, then join ranks to subjugate? Aren’t Christians supposed to turn the other cheek and all that jazz? Isn’t GOD the one and only judge?

    From Matthew…”Judge not, least ye be judged yourself.”

    I’m from that part of the states, and I can tell you all about the intolerance projected towards anyone who isn’t a Baptist. And that is what is wrong with this fucked up country. And I made a point to say ‘fucked up’ because I know how much you like to read swear words hear at Gordons free speech forum.

  40. Red Phillips Says:

    Whether the activity should be illegal is one matter. Whether it should be a consideration in a custody hearing is another. What I was primarily objecting to is the idea that Christians are supposed to embrace entirely modern, liberal, moral relativists positions on homosexuality or else be “bigots.” In the modern PC age, it is not enough merely to hold certain private opinions without “forcing them on others.” The mere holding of them is becoming a thought crime. Christians are asked to cease being Christians or at least cease being serious Christians.

  41. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    Well the use of the term religious “bigotry” to describe support of posting the Ten Commandments and the implication that homosexuality is an illegitimate issue (“bigotry”) in a custody case would be my first clues.

    It’s not the job of a government judge to post his religious symbols in court, legislate from the bench against voluntary sexual behavior or have religious prayers in a government court.


    Last I check, Christianity and the Bible explicitly condemned homosexuality as a sin.

    Last time I checked, that is none of the government’s business.


    Are you suggesting that a Bible believing Christian can think homosexuality is OK?

    No, I’m suggesting that if they can not separate that opinion from their job, they do not belong on the bench. A religious Jewish or Muslim judge
    can’t think eating pork is OK, but if they try to put you in jail for it, they should be removed from office. See the difference?

    It is kind of hard to get past those verses explicitly condemning the act isn’t it?

    Not really, but that’s completely irrelevant, since it should have nothing whatsoever to do with secular law or politics.


    No one is worshipping a rock.

    Except the idolater Roy Moore.


    The issue is that posting the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court is not a violation of the First Amendment as the Federal Court wrongly and illegitimately decided.

    You have a very narrow case to make based on the idea that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Of course, even if true, this would be irrelevant, since the states - including Alabama - have their own state constitutions which protect freedom of religion.

  42. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    .” The mere holding of them is becoming a thought crime.

    Nonsense. I don’t care if Roy Moore and you write articles and deliver speeches condemning homosexuality, adultery, contraception, or sex outside the classical missionary position.

    Using government force in a child custody case to enforce your personal religious preferences is an entirely different matter.

    If you can’t tell the difference, you don’t belong anywhere near a court - except, possibly, as a defendant if you attempt to force your preferences on others.

  43. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    A religious Jewish or Muslim judge
    can’t think eating pork is OK, but if they try to put you in jail for it, they should be removed from office.

    Or take away your kids if you eat pork, I should add.

  44. Dave Williams Says:

    “Christians are asked to cease being Christians or at least cease being serious Christians.”

    That’s bullshit and you know it. Know one’s asking that you or any one else stop believing as you/they wish. The issue; there is danger from extremists ‘round every corner. All with their own agenda, religious or secular. And to have those agenda’s imposed against an individuals will, well, that must be stopped.

  45. jr Says:

    They purport to love the rule of law until, of course, they discover that the law is not to their satisfaction. Then they despise the rule of law. Anarchists all.

    It is a hallmark of our tradition that we have eased the once severe penalties for unspeakable private affairs, and have done fairly well at securing personal privacy in such regards (admittedly with exceptions, and the ever-present possibility for abuse of power).

    Is it merely coincidence that, as our liberties to life and property disappear on a daily basis, anarchists call for ever-more libertine relaxation of traditional moral judgement in maintaining societal order?

    We have at last gone from the common law condemnation of perversion to not even being allowed to consier it in child custody - without being called an extremist of criminal proportions.

    I give you Blackstone for a reference point from where we’ve come:

    OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS OF INDIVIDUALS

    Book V Chapter 15

    IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity [than the crime rape!]; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out: for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

    I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; “peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum k.” A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans l; “ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei.” Which leads me to add a word concerning it’s punishment.

    This, the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not “merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy, by statute 25 Hen. VIII, c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et consentientes pari paena plectantur q 7.

  46. Red Phillips Says:

    Dave and Sherlock, it is not a question of what Roy Moore’s “job” is. There is nothing that prohibits him from posting the Ten Commandments. It is a question of Federal overreach and the gross misapplication of the First Amendment in the name of rigorous public square secularism. That is clearly not what the Founding Fathers intended, and it is not how the States conducted business until long after the Constitution was ratified. (Admittedly I prefer the Articles of Confederation.) Orthodox (small o) Christianity was presupposed and assumed by the average American and the vast majority of the Founders. No amount of historical revisionism and myth making in secularist tracts babbling about Deists is going to change that. As a conservative, I wish to conserve (funny how that works) the particularly Christian nature of this Republic as it was originally conceived. The idea of a rigorously secular public square is of recent vintage. It can not possibly be what the Founders intended.

    Also, if you think that Christians thinking homosexuality to be wrong even without ANY political implications is not now considered by the liberal, enlightened cosmo set a thought crime in and of itself then you haven’t been paying attention. Let me introduce you to something the rest of us like to call Political Correctness. Great example. Ron Paul, a 72 year old Baptist, was castigated as a homophobe because he was, in the words of our pal Eric Dondero, “uncomfortable” with homosexuality. The horror. If a 72 year old Baptist isn’t “uncomfortable with homosexuality then there is something wrong with him. Since at that age he missed out on the PC indoctrination drum beat that is modern education and society.

    And Dave spare me the concerns about Roy Moore’s “idolatry.” I hardly think that the state of Roy Moore’s soul is your principle objection.

  47. Phil Sawyer Says:

    How can Chuck Baldwin be “a front runner for the nomination” when he is not even an announced candidate?

  48. Trent Hill Says:

    Phil,

    It is well-known that Baldwin will run if asked. And most (if not all) of us would prefer to ask Baldwin than to run Grundmann or Rieske or Templin.

  49. Cody Quirk Says:

    SoveriegnMN made part of my point.

    Another thing is that Roy Moore and Mike Peroutka have been very good pals to each other.

    ...I’ll take Chuck over Roy please.

Leave a Reply