Chuck Baldwin Site Goes Live


It appears Chuck Baldwin’s website just went live, although it certainly isn’t fully fleshed out yet.

Chuck Baldwin is obviously relying heavily upon a candidacy which portrays him as a surrogate for Ron Paul. His main page says he is “continueing the Revolution”. Baldwin’s site also features a quote from his acceptance speech at the Constitution Party National Convention:

“It will not just be conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, people of faith 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.”

84 Responses to “Chuck Baldwin Site Goes Live”

  1. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    I’m not sure how he thinks he can call people of a atheist/agnostic/ non-religious persuasion ‘unbelievers’ and still expect them to vote for him. He might as well have just called me a heathen or infidel.

    I just tuned out the intolerant wacko in the middle of the first sentence I’ve ever read of his.

    so much for the Constitution Party

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    Green,

    Your a Green—we arent really aiming at you to begin with.
    As for the “unbeliever” statement, I dont think its offensive.

  3. RetroCon Says:

    Well if your an atheist then by definition you don’t believe in a higher being, and are therefore are an “unbeliever”.

    As for Pastor Chuck, I will certainly consider voting for him, although I don’t even know if he’ll be on the ballot in my state. What is the CP’s ballot status in New York?

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    RetroCon,

    The CP is expected to have write-in status in NY.

  5. beer cans for satan Says:

    “unbelievers”

    ********************

    lol! what a fucking joke!

  6. disinter Says:

    What on earth makes these christo-fascist extremists, who pray for theocracy, think they are advocates of liberty?

  7. Stefan Says:

    Trent: they cannot get ballot access in NY via the Conservative Party in NY, that normally supports conservative Republicans (only for this election?). They should negotiate with the CP, or the Independent Party (only for this election?).

  8. Stefan Says:

    disinter:

    have you really studied Baldwin’s positions? He is quite libertarian, against the war on drugs etc. and he is not for a constitutional change, unlike Huckleberry who wants to change the constitution to make it a “christian theocracy”. Baldwin knows something about US history and knows apart from Christians, there are also Deists, Atheists etc. that worked on the US constitution and knows there is a relative differentiation between church and state. And religious liberty and to freedom to worship has also everything to do with liberty. He is not forcing anyone to go to a church, so quit calling him or the CP fascists!

  9. benedict sux knapp Says:

    sorry all, a bit off topic. but i feel i need to let everyone know something. i’ve been picking aluminum cans out of peoples trash for three weeks just so i can donate the money i earn to mary ruwarts campaign, god bless you mary, and god bless kiddie porn.

  10. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    And God said to me, “HEAR O ISRAEL, WOE UNTO THE UNBELIEVERS, FOR THEY HAVE BEEN ARROGANT AND DISOBEDIENT. LISTEN ATTENTIVELY TO THE WORDS OF YOUR MESSINGERS, AND SUPPORT THE OBAMA REVOLUTION, EITHER BY VOTING FOR OBAMA DIRECTLY, OR CHUCK BALDWIN. WOE UNTO THE LIBERTARIANS, FOR THEY KNOW NOT THE GLORY OF STATISM, AND WOE UNTO THE GREENS, FOR THEY ARE PART OF THE RODHAM/BUSH/MCCAIN CONSPIRACY. GLORY TO MY SON JESUS AND MY HOLY MESSINGER LEON TROTSKY, WHO DIED IN GLORIOUS BATTLE WITH THE ILLUMINATI CONSPIRATOR RAMON MERCATOR. MAY THE ICEPICK BE A SYMBOL OF THE OBAMA REVOLUTION, JUST LIKE THE CROSS WILL BECOME. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.”

  11. Jerry Baner Says:

    I hope Gravel gets the Libertarian nomination, if only to debate Chuck Baldwin. Gravel’s an open atheist, or ‘unbeliever’ in the gospel of Baldwin. Sparks would fly.

  12. Ronald Monroe Says:

    A friend of mine asked me who I was going to vote for president I told Chuck Baldwin, He told me I was wasting my vote. I asked him if he thought I was not wasting my vote by choosing one of three liberals running for the two major parties.

    Conservative should take into account that voting for Chuck Baldwin is not voting for the less significant of the three evils. It is time for christians to make a stand against our country spinning deeper into communism.

  13. SovereignMN Says:

    Jerry, the only sparks that would fly between Gravel and Baldwin would be over Gravel’s ridiculous big-government policies…not over his atheism. Baldwin has said that in the pulpit it is his job to preach the gospel but in politics it is his job to defend the constitution and the rights of all men.

  14. Red Phillips Says:

    disinter, your party is having a long, heated, and very public discussion on whether or not there should be laws against child porn. I would 100 times rather be a “Christo-fascist extremist” praying for theocracy, whatever that means, than be someone so blinded by ideology that I have lost all moral sense.

    Perhaps you need to get your own party’s house in order before you come over here and lecture us.

    The mercenary Chuck Baldwin supporter in me kinda hopes you nominate the Princess of Child Porn so Chuck Baldwin can have the Ron Paul vote all to himself. But the decent human in me really hopes your party comes to it senses.

  15. disinter Says:

    I would 100 times rather be a “Christo-fascist extremist” praying for theocracy, whatever that means, than be someone so blinded by ideology that I have lost all moral sense.

    The CP contradicts itself by claiming to be a party that advocates liberty and the constitution, yet it is intolerant to other religions and atheists. I don’t believe the CP ever even had a solid “moral sense” to lose.

  16. NewFederalist Says:

    Stefan- New York only requires 15,000 valid signatures. Isn’t there enough support for the CP to gather (or pay for) 25,000 raw signatures? That does not seem that tough to me in a state with a population the size of New York.

  17. disinter Says:

    Not to mention you are a bunch of bigots:

    “we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Family

  18. SovereignMN Says:

    Definition of bigot: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”

    Sounds like disinter’s opinion of religion. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  19. Red Phillips Says:

    disinter, the CP advocates liberty as it was originally understood. It does not advocate license, and thank God for it. The country already has one libertarian party debating the merits of legalizing kiddie porn. It doesn’t need another. What it needs is an authentically conservative party which includes conserving our Christian heritage.

  20. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    Trent,

    How can anyone trust Baldwin to uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution when the only statement on his website uses a pejorative to describe people who are not of his faith?

    Hypocrisy, thy name is the Constitution Party.

    Stefan - FYI - the Independence Party in NY had Nader on the Ballot in 2004 - there’s no way that Baldwin will get their ballot line.

  21. Red Phillips Says:

    Unbelievers is a pejorative? It seems to me to communicate rather well what you are, but please enlighten me. What is the correct pc term for those who reject religion? Belief challenged?

  22. -J- Says:

    I wonder if we’ll see any tacit support for Chuck Baldwin from Ron Paul or even an open endorsement after the Republican Convention.

  23. Greg Says:

    “Unbeliever”? I guess the notion of burden of proof doesn’t apply to religion. Sorry Chuck but the so-called revolution will continue to manifest itself through the GOP.

  24. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    Red,

    There is no blanket PC term that I know of to describe the many shades of aetheism/agnosticism/areligious, but ‘unbelievers’ implies that we are somehow less because we don’t believe in Baldwin’s particular God, hence the pejorative. Try secular, or even non-believers would be better than unbelievers, which through use down the centuries by all of the world’s religious fanatics equates the word with infidel, heretic or heathen.

  25. Red Phillips Says:

    “Baldwin’s particular God”

    Cute. You mean the God of Christianity? The religion still of the majority of Americans? The religion of the overwhelming majority of the settlers who founded this country? The historic religion of the West, what used to be called Christendom because of it? That “particular” God?

  26. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Red,

    In Michigan you are right, there seems to be a few Christians left. Last week end we put 45 candidates on the ballot for the US Taxpayers Party of Michigan. I already have several for the next election.

  27. -J- Says:

    You have to figure that Baldwin has asked for permission to use the phrase “r3VOLution” on his site. Legally of course the phrase isn’t trademarked or anything but that is a major calling card of Ron Paul supporters and I don’t think Baldwin would have coopted it on his own.

  28. SovereignMN Says:

    Baldwin is upfront in identifying himself as a Christian. Thus he BELIEVES in the Christian faith. What is the term for those who do not subscribe to Christian doctrines? UNBELIEVERS. It’s not a pejorative…it’s an accurate statement.

  29. matt Says:

    Buddhists, lapsed muslims, agnostics, and (perhaps) hindus have run on the CP ticket over the last several years.

    That’s probably because of how theocratic the CP is…

  30. G.E. Says:

    Gene - You’re kidding right? I’m an atheist and I knot only find the term “unbelievers” inoffensive, I find it downright accurate. Here we have a religiously pious candidate making a shoutout to atheists—would John McCain or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton do this? The CP seems more open minded to atheists then the major parties. I’d say the CP, or certainly Chuck Baldwin, has a lot more respect for atheists then the Green Party has for conservative Christians, or even Christians in general.

  31. Deran Says:

    I think Hill’s response dismissing Green in Brooklyn’s comments. and clearly stating that all this is not for Greens or anyone on the Left, speaks volume to the truth of this site - Conservative Party Watch.

    I’ll stiop reading now, which I’m sure is fine with you rightwing nutters. Good luck getting 100k votes, losers.

  32. G.E. Says:

    dsinter - I thought it was your position that “homosexual unions” should not be legally recognized?

    Red - Your child porn barbs are an eponymous herring. It’s about a legal philosophy—should anything but the direct initiation of force be legal? It’s not about whether something is acceptable or a good idea. It’s about whether the state should be involved or not. I am not an anarchist and I do believe that local government should forcefully prosecute child molestation and those who essentially post bounties on the innocence of children by making a market in the evidence of their abuse. But to dismiss Mary Ruwart for a legal philosophy disagreement on an issue in which the federal government should not be involved, and to somehow associate her with a “pro-child porn” stance is beneath your dignity. Mary is a great champion of liberty and a friend and endorsee (her book, anyway) of Ron Paul. Your candidate seems to think fairly highly of Ron Paul. I would think his support for Mary would mean something.

  33. G.E. Says:

    These other tools make me ashamed to be an atheist. What a bunch of pussies.

  34. Sean Says:

    G.E. So are you saying that you are in favor of fighting child porn at the state level and not at the federal level?

  35. G.E. Says:

    I’m just flabbergasted that an effort to reach out to people results in Baldwin having his hand bitten. Whatever. There are non-Cosmotarian libertarian atheists who appreciate his effort to let us know we’re welcome.

  36. G.E. Says:

    Sean - Me personally, yes. “Fighting it” meaning execution of child molestors and castration of the possessors. I don’t see half-measures doing anything but exacerbating the problem. But I still understand and identify with Mary Ruwart’s position, even if I disagree with it. And I still support Mary 100%. This has been nothing but a virtual gang rape against her, orchestrated by the LPHQ in favor of their Republican candidate, the odious abortionist Bob Barr. Mary Ruwart may believe that “children” with the mental capacity to consent should be allowed to; Bob Barr prefers to butcher them in the womb first.

  37. G.E. Says:

    Deran - If you think libertarians are conservatives, then you need to do more studying. Come back to TPW when you can make the differentiation.

  38. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E., all that other business is just sophistry. I am really just flabbergasted that this whole discussion is even taking place. I never have and never would suggest that Mary “supports” or “favors” child porn. That would be simple minded and opportunistic. But she does believe there should be no laws against child porn. OF COURSE there should be laws against child porn. To think otherwise is to sacrifice any moral sensibilities whatsoever on the altar of maintaining ideological purity. I’m sure Mary is a decent person in many ways. She is sure right about the War. But she has allowed her “plumb line ideology” to override her decency and innate sense and advocates a position that is morally reprehensible.

    What the libertarians seem to forget is that the vast majority of people don’t even accept their “non-initiation of force” first principle. It is a novel idea that is a derivative of a derivative of what is itself a rather novel idea (classical liberalism). But they act as if it is a principle with which no one can dispute. They really need to get out a little. Go to the local mall and peddle the legalize child porn line. They would be lucky if someone didn’t kick their sorry behinds.

  39. citizen1 Says:

    The theocrat that is or was running to president was Huckabee. He wanted the Constitution to be rewritten to be more like the Bible.

  40. Sean Says:

    G.E.
    So is it fair to say: that your view of child porn is analogous to the CP view on Abortion and Gay Marriage—it is a states rights issue? Or do you oppose it as the state level?

  41. The Democratic Republican Says:

    G.E.: Well said in reference to Baldwin.

    Still, I don’t understand why it is you believe that some sort of personal agency would have more legitimacy than the state when it kills or castrates someone.

  42. Yank Says:

    I don’t know if I would do CP ass. Maybe.

  43. Andy Says:

    “disinter Says:

    May 9th, 2008 at 2:17 am
    What on earth makes these christo-fascist extremists, who pray for theocracy, think they are advocates of liberty?”

    They are certainly more pro-liberty than the average Democrat and Republican.

  44. G.E. Says:

    Red says “I am really just flabbergasted that this whole discussion is even taking place”; and “To think otherwise is to sacrifice any moral sensibilities whatsoever on the altar of maintaining ideological purity.”

    Perfect example of the poison that is conservatism.

    Discussions themselves are suspect. To even THINK a certain way, particularly as an intellectual, is heresy.

    I do believe that child pornography, including the sale of it after the fact, is the initiation of force, and I have articulated that argument. I hold firm to the ideological line.

    Red then goes on to deride libertarianism because if a libertarian posited his viewpoints to someone at the mall, he would be physically accosted.

    Yes, Red Phillips is a CONSERVATIVE, indeed. In the brutal classical sense of the word.

  45. David F. Nolan Says:

    From what I’ve been reading here on TPW, Chuck Baldwin sounds like a decent guy who is clearly more freedom-friendly than McCain, B.O. or Hillary. And for the most part, his supporters here are better-mannered than some of the flamers who infest the threads covering LP affairs.

    That said, I have qualms about any political party that states up-front that it is based on adherence to any one religion (or to religion at all). Although more Americans consider themselves Christian in some sense than align with any other faith, the USA is in fact a secular nation with a long tradition of separation of church and state. And most of us would like to keep it that way! By identifying itself as the “Jesus Party,” the CP thus marginalizes itself.

    A side note on the much-discussed “kiddie porn” issue. I think it’s important to distinguish clearly between the PRODUCTION of child porn (evil, should be banned) and the POSSESSION of same. Criminal possession laws are a favorite tool of police states because it’s so easy to frame someone by planting forbidden items in their home, vehicle, or on their hard drive.

  46. G.E. Says:

    Sean - My personal view of abortion is that it is the initiation of force against the unborn and should be illegal in my state. I do not presume to make the laws regarding violence for my neighboring state any more than I wish to legislate for China or Tanzania. I think gay marriage, like heterosexual marriage, should be privatized, and all marriage should be a personal, religious (or not) affair, with no involvement from the state. I think homophobia is small-minded and irrational.

    D.R. - The killing and or castration should be on the most local level possible, thereby holding those who administer the punishment most directly accountable to the people on behalf of whom they claim to act. Harsh punishment and execution is the tool of tyrants and will be abused. Allegations of sexual misconduct with children are particularly poisonous, and we must keep that in mind. If tyrants are to abuse their power, better they be local tyrants with less power than national or even statewide tyrants.

  47. G.E. Says:

    Oh, and Red—Mary’s point is that making child porn illegal may actually cause more of it. This is certainly the case with drug prohibition. I think the nature of the two are different, and thus I don’t buy her argument, but I think it’s worth considering. Weigh the evidence and then pronounce judgment—don’t automatically dismiss an opinion. Then again, you are a proud conservative and conservatives were never fond of reason or thought.

  48. G.E. Says:

    Question: Has anyone else received their universal welfare stimulus checks yet? I was counting on my “free money” to get to Denver, but I wanted to set aside $100 to donate to Baldwin to hedge my bets.

  49. Michael Says:

    New Federalist—It’s not the total number of signatures in New York State that’s the problem, it’s the other laws that go along with it. Which districts the signers live in, collecting them, getting them confirmed, ect.

  50. Sean Says:

    Sorry, G.E. , I don’t think my question must have been clear. I was using the CP position of abortion and gay marriage as examples of something the party says is a states rights issue that are found morally questionable. And thus, is your position that it is up to the state to make child porn laws, or is that to restrictive?

    Yes, I think possession on a computer is far to easy to plant, and is questionable…

  51. The Democratic Republican Says:

    G.E.:

    Two questions:

    1) How is what you’re describing different than the status quo (I mean this seriously; I’m not trying to be sarcastic with you)?

    2) Isn’t it possible that James Madison was on to something when he disagreed with you and Jefferson on this point? Yes, national tyranny is bad. But the 14th Amendment, with its guarantee of federal protection for due process in the states, must have seemed pretty damn good to the many blacks who have been subjected to suffering by thousands of local tyrants. To them, the federal government is the liberator (just as Caesar was to the poor of his own time, contrary to the republican and bouregois Cato).

  52. The Democratic Republican Says:

    G.E.—Nope, I haven’t gotten my buyoff check either. I am shocked that the IRS hasn’t gotten it to me by the promised deadline.

    Ironically enough, my check is exactly what I paid in taxes out of pocket.

  53. disinter Says:

    dsinter - I thought it was your position that “homosexual unions” should not be legally recognized?

    No “union” or marriage should be legally recognized (which is another reason they aren’t pro-liberty). However when they specifically single out “homosexual unions” in their platform, that is called bigotry.

  54. disinter Says:

    Definition of bigot: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”

    You conveniently left out the rest:

    A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

  55. G.E. Says:

    D.R.

    1. What I’m describing is much different from the status quo in that I think child-sex cases are dealt with far too lightly. Being a pedophile (one who is attracted to pre-pubescent individuals) itself is not a crime, but once someone has shown a propensity to act out these perverse desires, I don’t think there is much evidence to suggest rehabilitation is possible. But regardless, I’m not as much arguing against the status quo as I am arguing against 1) Increased federal authority to deal with this issue, 2) The notion that what Mary Ruwart says is somehow unfit to be uttered.

    2. The 14th amendment wasn’t ratified, and its acceptance as such represents a military coup by the radical centralist Republicans, who are the ones who set back racial relations for 100 years with their Reconstruction policy, and then left blacks to fend for themselves after a decade or so of protection. I think this is a fairly good example of what a disaster it is when the federal government presumes to protect the rights of individuals from infringement by their state and local governments.

  56. G.E. Says:

    dsinter - Yes, they do single out homosexual unions, and that is bigoted. I think its fairly safe to say that many CP members are homophobic or find homosexuals and homosexuality “distasteful” and some may even want legal prohibitions. But I also know that the CP has stood against federal involvement in the marriage issue, even by constitutional amendment, which is more than you can expect from any other party, including many “libertarians” like George Phillies.

  57. G.E. Says:

    Sean - Under the Constitution, the states certainly have the authority to make laws regarding child pornography. I have articulated elsewhere why I find child pornography, including the sale and trafficking thereof, to be an act of violence, and therefore, I support laws that would have the effect of reducing it. The question is whether or not our laws do accomplish this goal. Mary Ruwart thinks not, and that the laws cause more harm than good. She may be right. But I contend that perhaps the laws are not strict enough.

  58. disinter Says:

    Baldwin is upfront in identifying himself as a Christian. Thus he BELIEVES in the Christian faith.

  59. disinter Says:

    Baldwin is upfront in identifying himself as a Christian. Thus he BELIEVES in the Christian faith.

    Great. I BELIEVE that the CP is full of a bunch of bigoted nutjobs that advocate theocracy. Does that make all of you “unbelievers” then?

  60. disinter Says:

    But I also know that the CP has stood against federal involvement in the marriage issue, even by constitutional amendment, which is more than you can expect from any other party, including many “libertarians” like George Phillies.

    True.

  61. citizen1 Says:

    The only reason that the government is interested in your marriage or union is so they can control you. A big part of that is taxes. The first marriage licenses in this country were only for interracial marriages. The government should have no control over who gets married. It is a religious institution. If you can find a church that will marry you then you can get married, no civil marriages. I am personally opposed to any type of homosexual marriage or union.

  62. The Democratic Republican Says:

    I certainly agree with you about punishments, but I’m still not clear on whether or not existing appartuses of “the government” are acceptable to you as means of punishment.

    We can argue history at another time, but tell me: why is it that federal power is so much more inherently unjust or unwise than state or local power? Reconstruction occupation may have failed in its goals of racial equality, but nonetheless, doesn’t the effort on the part of the federal government, in contrast with the evil of racism in the South over the last 100+ years, demonstrate that that power closest to “the people” isn’t always the most just?

    Think about Lysander Spooner for a minute. He would argue that even local authority is a fiction. So why should we respect one fiction over another in light of the fact that the local “fiction” is, until the last 50 or so years, the worst violator of individual rights?

  63. The Democratic Republican Says:

    G.E.: you’re the one that worked for ron paul, right? I’m assuming your take on this is informed by Lew Rockwell?

  64. The Democratic Republican Says:

    disinter: yes, I am an “unbeliever” in your doctrine. That is correct.

  65. disinter Says:

    The Democratic Republican - Cool. Then Baldwin just called his party a bunch of bigoted nutjobs.

  66. The Democratic Republican Says:

    disinter: what the hell are you even talking about?

  67. The Democratic Republican Says:

    by being an unbeliever of YOUR doctrine, I demonstrate that you are a “believer” and since those people are “believers” they “believe” what you “believe”? That linguistic trick might work on a five year old but not on grown ups. I seriously hope all of your political beliefs aren’t based on similar logic, but guessing from some of your posts it may be a possibility.

  68. Red Phillips Says:

    “I think it’s fairly safe to say that many CP members are homophobic or find homosexuals and homosexuality “distasteful””

    It is safe to say that most Constitution Party members are devout Christians (and Mormons out West) who think homosexuality is a sin specifically condemned by God. If that is bigoted, take it up with God.

    Mr. Nolan, America does have separation of church and state, rightly understood. But it is highly debatable that America has been historically “secular,” especially the modern absolutist meaning of that term. America was overwhelmingly Christian and its presuppositions were Christian.

    G.E., I have never run from the fact that I am a paleoconservative. I reject many of the Enlightenment liberal assumptions from which almost all modern political debate proceeds. Your simplistic need to justify every position you hold in terms of the single principle of the initiation of force is absurd. One thing that conservatives have always acknowledged is that life and the world are complicated. To think that right action can all be boiled down to a simple principle is nonsense.

    As far as child porn, I can understand a concern that evidence is easy to plant, but the idea that a ban does more harm than good is mind-boggling. It is said to create a “black-market.” Well good. I hope the market in child porn is black. Heaven help us if the trade is ever carried out in the open. And a ban by definition raises the cost, does it not? Both the real cost in money and also the cost of potential imprisonment, lifelong labeling as a sex criminal, public humiliation, etc. That is a pretty high price, and yet some people still do it. Doesn’t basic economics and libertarian theory teach us that if prices are higher demand/consumption goes down? So wouldn’t by the simple rules of economics the demand/consumption go up if the price (including the price of imprisonment) went down? Here libertarians don’t even believe their own theories. Or else one theory - that government makes everything worse - trumps another theory of supply and demand. That a ban on child porn makes things worse or hurts kids more than it helps them is just mindless ideological blather.

  69. Inquisitive Says:

    Isn’t it interesting that all those who willingly acknowledge they fall into the classification of “unbeliever” (as stated by Baldwin), are then offended by that very title…..?? Why make all the fuss about a term that you assume for yourself….?? Why not wear the distinction with dignity if you are so inclined…??

  70. NewFederalist Says:

    Michael- Thanks for the info re: New York petitioning.

  71. Ben Says:

    I have to agree with Mr. Nolan when it comes to possession laws being used to frame people. I too oppose possession laws for that very reason. I know too many people that have been victims of criminals wearing badges. Think about your last HS reunion, and think of who entered law enforcement. Scarey indeed.

    Our legal system is such now that the word of a police officer is all that is necessary to convict. A police officer’s career is over if he is ever discredited in court so the “blue wall” is ever more a concern.

    Having been an EMT for over eight years and having worked with/for retired police officers in my paying career, I have acquired a belief that most, if not all, police officers are pathological liars and toadies.

    As a general rule, now that I am in a position to make hiring decisions, I regularly dismiss the applications of former law enforcement officers for better candidates. I have to able to trust the people that work for me, and an employee that is lying to me is of no value to me or my company. The qualifications for the Gestapo and our modern police force have much in common. Gone are the days of Andy Taylor if they ever really existed.

  72. BBTBOTL Says:

    I still find it amazing how people will reject someone who logically believes that we were created by God rather than by chance coming out of slime after billions of years. Come on people. This Baldwin guy is more of a choice than the other 3 by far. At least he says it like it is and isn’t bought off by an interest group. People who don’t believe in the God of the Bible are unbelievers in the God of the Bible. What’s the confusion. Anyway, Baldwin has my vote regardless.

  73. G.E. Says:

    Red Phillips - Conservatives have always hated economics and shunned reason, so it’s no surprise that you do so, and quite flagrantly. Black markets create scarcity, which create higher prices and profits and often lead to proprietors working to stimulate demand. I will say this—you are a legitimate CONSERVATIVE in that you don’t care about the effects of a policy, nor the inherent justice of it, but instead, you wish to have the state act as God and punish wrongdoers. Yours is an argument for higher profits for child pornographers, just as the Drug Warrior’s argument is for higher profits for the drug trade. This does not mean that child porn should be legal any more than murder should be legal (legalized murder would lead to lower prices for hitmen!), because both are, by my reasoning, initiations of force. But your “argument” that having the discussion of the best way to deal with this problem is itself absurd, and that obviously the government needs to be involved, is intellectually slothful and, indeed, true to the anti-intellectual, anti-reason spirit of classical conservatism, the most wicked political philosophy in the history of civilization.

    Inquisitive - Not true. I am an unbeliever and proud of it. And I’m not only not offended by Baldwin’s use of the word, I welcome his effort to reach out to unbelieving Rockwellian libertarians. Baldwin is my third choice, following Ruwart and Kubby.

  74. The Democratic Republican Says:

    I never really paid attention, but: doesn’t the LOVE in REVOLUTION go backwards? If so, someone please tell Baldwin that he has the E going backwards and not the L on the frontpage of his website.

  75. G.E. Says:

    D.R.

    1. Okay, I’ll be plain. I have not done the amount of research that I’m sure Ms. Ruwart has done on the issue. I do not consider child porn to be a significant problem (i.e. a common one), but maybe I’m wrong. I do find child-sex abuse to be a very serious problem and something far too common that is dealt with far too lightly by state governments. Therefore, I will give a qualified yes to your question, with plenty of caveats. To put it as simply as possible, I would have no problem with the state of Michigan executing an indisputably guilty habitual child molestor. Is that good enough?

    2. Federal power is inherently worse than local because the administers of it are far removed from the people who elected them. Why not just let a World Counsul in Beijing determine the curriculum of our public schools? When tyrants are local, they can be ousted more easily.

    You say we can argue history another time, but then you make several historically contentious comments: The North was violently and reprehensibly racist as well as the South. Though it seems absurd on the face of it, a credible argument can be made that the North was MORE racist than the South. Regardless, I blame the South’s racist legacy, post-Civil War, squarely at the feet of the Republican Party, for its invasion of the South under the false banner of emancipation, and its later Reconstruction. I do not for a moment believe that the Republicans, in general, were interested in the plight of African-Americans beyond getting them to the polling place to vote for them.

    3. You bring up Lysander Spooner. I assume you know that he was a hardcore anti-Lincolnian who agreed with the South’s right to secede, right? Spooner was an anarchist and I am not, so we will not be 100% on the same page. I’m far from a Spooner expert, but my guess is that while (you say and I assume it’s accurate that) he considered local authority to be a “fiction,” he would probably agree that far-removed authority was far worse!

  76. johncjackson Says:

    As an atheist I as not offended at all by that quote. In fact I thought it was pretty good coming from a CP candidate. I wouldn’t vote for the guy but he seems less offensive than most. Too bad a lot of his followers dont really follow suit and used this post to keep digging a hole.

    GE,
    I got my Direct Deposit welfare today. if you are using check, you could be waiting until July depending on the last 2 #s in your socialist slave number.

  77. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E., so why are the oil companies, for example, not lobbying Congress to have the sale of petroleum banned? It would drive up costs and enrich them, by your logic. So if Congress proposed a ban on the sale of wheat and corn, farmers would support that because they could then charge higher prices and make out like bandits?

  78. Ben Says:

    Farmers benefit too much from the subsidised ethanol industry. Congress essentially bans the sale of farm goods by subsidising farmers to leave ground fallow.

  79. G.E. Says:

    Red - The oil companies and farmers do lobby Congress to have the sale of their products banned (for other people) or regulated to create scarcity. They would prefer to operate from within the “law,” for sure. They would prefer to, as they do, use the government’s guns to secure their investments and to shake down the poor of this country. Farmers do make out like bandits now—and they ARE bandits (some of them, at least). They don’t want a free market and they don’t have one. If all of the rules and regulations were slashed, then yes, the price of corn would plummet extremely fast. Oil is a different case in that it already is heavily subsidized to keep it “cheaper” to the direct consumer who pays for it through his taxes, or, in the case of my wife’s grandfather, with their health and lives. I know conservatives create history out of thin air to make it suit their fantasies, but are you going to allege that alcohol Prohibition did not create more crime, higher prices and profits for the booze-peddlers, and more drinkers after than before it? The neocons and liberals don’t have the market on “unpredictable” history cornered, I see.

  80. disinter Says:

    I demonstrate that you are a “believer” and since those people are “believers” they “believe” what you “believe”?

    Now your learnin. Slowly, but learnin.

    That linguistic trick might work on a five year old but not on grown ups.

    Seems to work when Baldwin uses it.

  81. G.E. Says:

    disinter - You should lay off Baldwin. He has Ron Paul’s support. He’s a good man and, in the absence of a Ruwart or Kubby victory, will unquestionably be the most “libertarian” (even though he’s not libertarian) candidate on your presidential ballot. As president, and that’s the office he’s running for, he would do nothing to infringe on your rights. Why do you care so much what his personal beliefs may be?

  82. Jose C. Says:

    “I still find it amazing how people will reject someone who logically believes that we were created by God rather than by chance coming out of slime after billions of years.”

    Haven’t you heard. According to the leading Darwinist of our time humans evolved from Crystals!

  83. Bill Woolsey Says:

    G.E. appears to know just enough to be dangerous about the economics of prohibition.

    Anyway, to the degree that the purpose of drug prohibition is to help drug abusers (by keeping drugs away from them,) prohibition has some counterproductive affects. Those who abuse drugs anyway are made much worse off. On the other hand, this seems likely to deter some people from ever abusing drugs. (To the degree the aim is to punish
    drug abusers, then these counter-productive impacts of prohibition aren’t
    such a concern.)

    Anyway, prohibtion of the production and sale of child pornography isn’t aimed at protecting pedophiles. That those who use it anyway are worse off isn’t a problem. And detering people from using it, is the point. But
    it really isn’t being done to help the pedophile.

    It is actually possible that prohibition will increase the total revenue from
    production and sale. A smaller quantity at a higher price can raise revenue. Or, it can lower it. However, it is unlikely existing corn farmers would want to use prohibition of the product as a method of raising total revenue. And, even if total revenue were to fall from prohibition, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be more than enough revenue to encourage criminals to produce and sell a smaller quantity
    for profit.

    The logic of black markets just explains that something isn’t likely
    to simply disappear because it is banned.

  84. Gary Odom Says:

    Don’t count out the CP candidates being on the ballot in NY

Leave a Reply