Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin on BlogTalkRadio

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin joins BlogTalkRadio host Kevin Thompson on “Understanding Our Times” May 24, 2008, at 4 p.m. Eastern

Dr. Chuck Baldwin to appear with radio host Kevin Thompson on “Understanding Our Times.” Baldwin is considered by some to be the best conservative alternative for those who find themselves disappointed with major party Presidential candidates.

Brockton, MA - May 20, 2008—Constitution Party Presidential nominee Dr. Chuck Baldwin will appear on BlogTalkRadio’s show “Understanding Our Times” with host Kevin Thompson on Saturday, May 24, 2008, at 4 p.m. Eastern. The exclusive interview will highlight Dr. Baldwin’s campaign, his relationship with Congressman Ron Paul as well as his views on various subjects such as immigration and the potential for a North American Union.


Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Baldwin is also the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show “Chuck Baldwin Live” and the author of a widely distributed weekly news column.

Callers are welcome to join the conversation during the show by calling (347) 945-7171. The live, Internet talk-radio show will stream from the host page. “It is an incredible honor to have such an esteemed guest,” said Thompson, host of the program. “Chuck Baldwin is the only real choice conservatives have in this election. Those dissatisfied with John McCain and the Neo-con-controlled Republican Party will want to tune in and listen.”
An archive will be available at the same link immediately following the show or listeners can subscribe to the archives via the RSS feed located on the host page. Read more about the host and the discussion on Thompson’s blog.

11 Responses to “Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin on BlogTalkRadio”

  1. Red Phillips Says:

    Good catch Kevin.

  2. John Lowell Says:

    The advantages Baldwin may offer socially conservative, non-interventionist voters, namely those interested in candidates with pro-life and antiwar attitudes, are turned to ashes in many instances when one considers his committment to kill-off the UN and social security. I, for one, could never vote for him realizing that he’d turn one very important prop of my economic security into sausage. And that says nothing of the ostentatious and programatic displays of regiousity so frequently in evidence at the Constitution Party. Not every religious person sees typically Baptist moral grandstanding as sincere as frequently it isn’t.

  3. Sean Says:

    John,

    Did Chuck say getting rid of it overnight? If not, I expect his position is inline with the CP platform which calls for keeping the commitment to those who are on SSN, and phasing it out over time. “The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system.” More available at: www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Social%20Security

  4. Hyrum Says:

    I am going to wait to see his interview before judging how close he is to my positions.

  5. Red Phillips Says:

    John, there was a platform amendment offered at the Convention that would have done what you suggest. Tone down the language on Social Security. It was SOUNDLY defeated. Both in committee and when it was brought to the floor.

    The CP could not credibly claim to be Constitutionalist and not pledge to phase out SS. SS is clearly unconstitutional.

    Also, the Party is nearly unnanimous on getting out of the UN. That is one of the things that did Alan Keyes in.

  6. NewFederalist Says:

    Don’t sweat Lowell the troll… he bitches about everything and everybody.

  7. Ted Says:

    Anybody who isn’t already retired and considers Soc Sec an “important prop” of his/her economic security is in a world of hurt.

  8. Cody Quirk Says:

    Also, the Party is nearly unnanimous on getting out of the UN. That is one of the things that did Alan Keyes in.

    = His refusal to adhere to our stances did him in. I almost was sympathetic to him before the convention, then after hearing what happened, I’m almost glad Howard bashed Keyes.

  9. John Lowell Says:

    Sean,

    There is much in Baldwin’s portfolio that’s to be admired in my view. He was miles ahead of the Dobsons, Lands, and Colsons in calling Bush’s 2001 stem-cell compromise exactly what it was: a sell-out. And he has consistently fought for life and peace which, happily, takes him out of the ReichsChurch fold. I also share with him his concerns about NAFTA and illegal immigration. But all of that not withstanding, I do not share the Constitution Party’s view of Social Security, and while Baldwin’s “gradualism”, if we may call it that, might be mitigating, it is simply too much to expect that with our economic system in the crisis it’s experiencing, the privitization of much of anything might benefit the weakest among us ultimately. I also believe that the Constitution Party’s contempt for the UN is misguided. It’s what we’ve got and its done much good in the world. There’s undeniably a difference between anti-interventionism on the one hand and an internationalism free of the present neo-con contamination on the other, you know. I’m no Reaganite or Buchananite, Sean. I’m a non-ideological Catholic. People with my outlook are likely to sit-out the election.

    Red,

    All the more reason for me to eschew Baldwin and the CP and sit out the election.

    Ted,

    I’m still active in my business and expect to be so until they pick me up off of the floor. The SS check always arrives on time and the amount increases with the cost of living. A one time securities broker, you’d have a hard time convincing me that any monies one might earmark today toward retirement would be wisely placed in any kind of private market securities, even in governments, what with the dollar’s exposure. Clients may come and go here, but not old reliable, Social Security. Now if Baldwin wanted to hand me a lump sum amount of some kind ….

    New Federalist,

    Change emetics, your present one has stopped working.

  10. Deemer from California Says:

    I was one of the members of the Committee that worked on revising
    the Constitution Party plank on Social Security. What we spent a year
    on was a plan to split Social Security into 2 separate accounts. The 1st
    would be to enforce the payback of the entire amount of money that
    Congress has looted from the Social Security Trust fund over the years.
    That money would have been set aside for current recipients. Assuming
    a 7-8% return on that money everyone would have been protected.
    The 2nd account would have started at the same cutoff date. It would
    have established a Defeined Benefit Plan for every worker in these
    United States. The System would have been operated by the States
    through their existing Unemployment Plans. The Investment Managers
    for this National Pension Plan would have been required to follow all of
    them same laws for prudent investment that current Union & Corporate
    Pension Plans must adhere to. Unfortunately, many of the delegates in
    attendance are so hostile towards the Social Security Sytem that they
    shouted down our reasonable proposal to fix this financial time-bomb.
    Clearly, during the next 4 years a lot of work is needed to explain to
    the various State Parties about the full nature of what we attempted to
    get passed in Kansas City.

  11. Red Phillips Says:

    Deemer, don’t make the mistake that the Keyes forces made. They kept insisting that the reason we opposed their ideas is because we just didn’t get it. If we would just listen, then we would see the error of our ways.

    The problem is not that we didn’t understand the proposal, at least for the most part. The problem is that SS is grossly unconstitutional. As constitutionalists, we have to oppose SS or we cease being constitutionalists. I know the position hurts us with some elderly that might otherwise listen to us. But trust me, if we waffled on SS the constitutionalists and libertarians would be all over us for hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply