Chuck Baldwin on ‘the best and worst of 2008′

Chuck Baldwin reflects on his presidential campaign as the candidate of the Constitution Party, noting that it took him and his family over 30,000 miles in more than 30 states.

His “best” nominations from the campaign include Ron Paul, Lou Dobbs, and the John Birch Society. See here for the Birch Society’s appreciative response.

His “worst” list includes “worthless talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity” and most of the leaders of the Religious Right: “For all intents and purposes, the Religious Right has become nothing more than a gaggle of glorified hacks for the Republican Party. They have sacrificed virtually every principle worth defending.”

30 Responses to “Chuck Baldwin on ‘the best and worst of 2008′”

  1. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Where’s Alan Keyes on that list?

    I would also like to announce that the Catholic Trotskyist Party finally has its own website, linked in my name. It is still under construction, but there’s an introduction message there.

  2. Hallmonster Says:

    Alan Keyes is exactly where he belongs; OFF of the list. Compare Balwin’s foreign policy idea to Alan’s, they’re miles apart.

  3. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Yes yes yes. So called Third Party Watch and their effort to be more [Fox like] ‘fair and balance’ : saluting the original neocons…....The John Birchers!

  4. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Yes, I would have thought Alan Keyes would be on the “worst” list. But according to a comment on another website, Baldwin listed one of Keyes’s publications as being on the “best ” list.

    Don, the John Birchers were not neocons.

  5. Cody Quirk Says:

    The Birchers are hardcore Paleocons.

    Get your political ideologies right Don.

  6. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Pay attention to what they do [pro empire] not merely what they say! Cody, ye of stolen postings, ye of ‘why yes, the Constitution Party is more than just the anti gay and any abortion organization! Yeah, like I am not going take any thing you or CT mention with out a ton of NaCL!

  7. Hallmonster Says:


    What exactly are you talking about? Please cite these “pro empire” sources related to the John Birch Society. If you are going to come out full swing with your tinfoil-hat conspiracy claims, at least back them up with legitimate sources (official articles endorsed by JBS members, etc.) first and let’s discuss these claims of yours on a rational level. If it’s a fair debate you want, a fair debate you will get. Am I wrong to think your accusations are a little blown out of proportion?

  8. Hallmonster Says:

    @ Catholic Trotskyist

    Off the political topic; take a look at some free Wordpress themes for your new blog:

    ...Not that a visual layout of your blog should really matter in the political sense, but a first impression could be bang or bust for a first time visitor who might potentially take your site seriously and become a return visitor versus a first time visitor who will blow it off and never return again.

  9. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Gallmonitor: The Global Rockefellers, and the on going cheering squad for the NATO guys [I think we should have one second lt or one ensign for our entire ‘associate’ membership….......]

    Are You a Neocon?

    by Daniel McCarthy

    Regular readers of LRC or other right-of-center sites are sure to have seen terms like “neoconservative” and “paleo-libertarian” from time to time. A quick Google search can explain what the words mean, but definitions don’t really answer the more interesting and important question - which one are you?

    Naturally you might be neither “paleo” nor “neo.” But for those who’d like to find out I devised a quick quiz during a spell of procrastination a few months back. Here it is. After answering twenty questions it’ll give you my impression of which of ten modern American ideologies is the best fit for you, along with links to sites representing the philosophy of each.

    There’s no shortage of political quizzes on the ‘net, but how many others includes “paleoconservative” and “third way” as categories? Not many (or any) that I’ve seen. And to be thoroughly immodest, this quiz is less slanted than most too. I’m a pale-something myself though, so if you find bias that’s where I’m coming from. Other than that the major flaw is that I don’t know modern left-wing ideologies at all well, so the categories of “radical,” “liberal” and “third-way” probably are not how leftists would classify themselves.

    The quiz questions are mostly about public policy. An alternative method would have been to ask general philosophical questions, or even to ask for interpretations of historical events. I chose the policy-oriented approach because it seemed most straightforward and clear.

    Here, in brief, are the ideologies that the quiz examines. You’ll probalby want to take the quiz first though. The sketches below aren’t an answer key, but you can probably deduce from the definitions how someone of a given ideology would answer a particular question. That’s the entire principle of the quiz, after all.

    Centrist - Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn’t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.

    Conservative - Specifically a “fusionist” conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

    Left-libertarian - The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.

    Liberal - Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.

    Libertarian - A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.

    Neoconservative - A “neocon” is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.


    Paleoconservative - “Paleocons” want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.

    Paleo-libertarian - Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.

    Radical - Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

    Third-way - More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. “Third-way” is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

    June 26, 2001

    Daniel McCarthy [send him mail] is a graduate student in classics at Washington University in St. Louis.

    Copyright © 2001

    Daniel McCarthy Archives

    Back to Home Page

  10. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    see Neoconservatism (disambiguation).
    The Conservatism series,
    part of the Politics series
    Compassionate conservatism
    Conservative liberalism
    Cultural conservatism
    Fiscal conservatism
    Green conservatism
    Liberal conservatism
    Libertarian conservatism
    National conservatism
    Social conservatism
    Traditionalist conservatism
    Conservative parties
    Int’l Democrat Union
    European People’s Party
    European Democrats
    Movement for European Reform
    National variants
    United States
    Politics Portal
    This box: view • talk • edit

    Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[1]

    The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had “moved to the right”.[2][3] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[4] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about.”[5]

    The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, and considered its founder, is Irving Kristol, (father of William Kristol, who founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century), and wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’”[2] Kristol’s ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[7][8] The term has been the subject of increasing media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[9][10] In particular, discussion has focussed on the neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine, (see “Administration of George W. Bush,” below).

  11. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    To Learn More about this Vice - President
    Junto Society recommends these books!

    The Imperial Rockefeller: A Biography of Nelson A. Rockefeller

    ‘I Never Wanted to Be Vice-President of Anything!’: An Investigative Biography of Nelson Rockefeller
    The Politics of Trade: American Political Development and Foreign Economic Policy (Nelson A. Rockefeller Series in Social Science and Public Policy)

  12. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    A: [If NATO ain’t NEOCON, what is…............]

    The USA and Canada should not even be any thing but minimal, associate members….....

    (North) Atlantic Alliance, is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium,[3] and the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

    For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organization’s goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.[4] Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasion - doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO’s military structure from 1966.

    After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the Balkans while building better links with former potential enemies to the east, which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NATO has attempted to refocus itself to new challenges and has deployed troops to Afghanistan and trainers to Iraq.

    The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the EU on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act - the so-called “right of first refusal”.[5] Only if NATO refused to act would the EU have the option to act. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world’s defence spending, with the United States alone accounting for about half the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom and France accounting for a further 10%.

    B: [The Global Rockefellers/ Firestones/ Fords (Robert MacNamera of the Edsel and Veitnam…....] Coca Cola, the epitome of globalism and neocon!]

    The Rockefellers GAVE the land the United Nations Secretariat was built up on, selected the architect, and financed the construction [NYC]. Nelson/ Rocky, bought out Birch founder Welch’s candy company [at an inflated price] so the JBS could get started….......

  13. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    [might have been, could have been,——oh, oh, definitely some thing the neo cons of the Birch Society can criticize…............]

    John Birch Society, the fascist front organization started up after WW II with funds from the Nazi old guard, cannot tolerate left-wing “collectivism,” and has contrived a history of the peace sign intended to cast a pall over all things progressive by demonizing the ubiquitous symbol.

    The apocryphal JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY version:

    “The Truth About the Peace Symbol”
    By Alan Scholl
    Director of Mission and Campaigns for the John Birch Society.

    When Lisa Jensen and her husband, Bill Trimarco, of Pagosa Springs, Colorado put a Christmas wreath shaped like a peace sign on their house, their local homeowners association responded with an order to take down the wreath or pay a $25 per day fine. The homeowners association said that the sign was divisive in light of the ongoing hostilities in Iraq and said that some people had complained about the peace sign’s satanic connections. The order to have the wreath removed, though, sparked a nationwide controversy before the homeowners association relented and rescinded the removal order.

    Aside from the questionable wisdom of empowering homeowners associations to control and regulate the uses to which people may put their homes, the Pagosa Springs wreath controversy highlights once again the many misperceptions that exist about the origins of the peace symbol. Most people believe the symbol to be an innocuous expression of the desire for peace and cite as its “official” history, the fact that the symbol came into being in 1958 when a peace activist combined the semaphore letters N and D into a symbol of nuclear disarmament. Despite this, the symbol has a much deeper past in pagan antiquity and a much more sinister past in anti-Christian symbolism.

    As a pagan representation, the symbol has its origins in the ancient Norse-Germanic alphabet known as Futhark. This, the language of the runes, was not displaced until the Fourth Century when Arian bishop Ulfilas (AKA, Wulfila) created a new Gothic alphabet based on Greek. In the original runic language, the cross element of the peace symbol first appeared in an upright orientation as the “algiz” rune. According to Carl D. Liungman’s Dictionary of Symbols, the sign “is POSSIBLY associated with moose…. In the family system [the rune] stands for man.” According to the same dictionary of symbols, when inverted, as in the peace symbol, the Algiz rune “is SUPPOSED to have been used by Germanic tribes as Todesrune, the rune of death. In the family system it means man dies.” In fact, the rune used as a symbol of death was employed by the Nazis during World War II. In 1970 the GOP, in its newsletter Political Potpourri, published the image of a Nazi propaganda poster that prominently featured the inverted Algiz rune.

    It’s disturbing enough that the central element of the so-called peace symbol has been known since ancient times

  14. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    The current United Nations headquarters building was constructed on a 16 acre site in New York City between 1949 and 1950, beside the East River. This office project land was bought for 8.5 million dollars by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., using his son Nelson as a crucial negotiator with New York’s major developer, William Zeckendorf, in December 1946. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. then donated the land to the UN.

    The headquarters was designed by an international team of architects that included Le Corbusier (Switzerland), Oscar Niemeyer (Brazil), and representatives of numerous other nations. Wallace K. Harrison, an adviser to Nelson Rockefeller, headed the team.

  15. Hallmonster Says:

    So, someone from the John Birch Society wrote an article on the history of the peace symbol and now you think they are globalist Rockefeller Nazis? The author of that article gives me the impression that he sees the homeowners association in a negative light for what they were trying to do. Fail. Try again.

    Oh, and “Gallmonitor”.... Nice.

  16. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    You asked for documentation! I looked for just a FEW minutes. Plz do not admit that you were wrong, it is so much fun to see you squirm, deflect, and twist. Ya don’t like me, fine, no biggie.

    You are so tolerant of the Democans ans Republicrats that you waste time lying to and about good hearted anti establishment patriots? Shame on you, we have enough real enemies that REAL activists should not be squabbling over widely known falsities!

    What next, Cody Quirk is the soul of honesty? Get real dude, the on going crisis is too important not to!

    “The Rockefellers were also active on the ‘right wing’ front through their sponsorship of the John Birch Society. To enable Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Mason, to devote all of his time to the Society, Nelson Rockefeller purchased his family firm, the Welch Candy Company, from him at a handsome price.

    Welch chose the principal officers of the Society from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations. For years afterwards, American patriots were puzzled by the consistent inability of the John Birch Society to move forward on any of its well-advertised ‘anti-Communist’ goals.

    Other patriots wondered why most American conservative writers, including the present writer, were steadily blacklisted by the Society for some thirty years. After several decades of futility, the Society was totally discredited by its own record.”—Eustace Mullins, Murder By Injection, Staunton VA: National Council for Medical Research, 1988: 340-1

    Birdman note: The Rockefeller family is genetically Jewish, tho their religious affiliation is Baptist, and has had an intimate financial relationship with the world’s most powerful Jewish family—the Rothschilds. National Alliance founder Dr William Pierce, left because of its effective prohibition on discussing the role of Jews.] ”

  17. Hallmonster Says:

    Donald, Robert Welch openly attacked the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and their organizations and worked hard to bring the Illuminati/secret society conspiracies out into the open for the masses to see. Why the hell would the Rockefellers sponsor that??? Where are the paper trails?

    Tell me where you are getting your information from and why I should take anything you say seriously after your own ridiculous accusations of me. In your last post alone you called me a liar and a supporter of the Democrats and the Republicans. I wouldn’t be surprised if in your next post you come up with “documentation” that I am a Freemason out to infiltrate the third parties!

    Believe me, there is no “squirming” “deflecting” or “twisting” going on over on my end, just a lot of disbelief of the foolishness coming out of your mouth (or hands, whatever).

    You call yourself a good hearted anti establishment patriot, yet you seem to have no problem attacking good hearted anti establishment patriots in some feeble attempt to create a civil war among freedom loving individuals with flaky, skewed, questionable (to say the least) information and baseless claims. I am not your enemy, so don’t try to create one out of me because you are only going to give yourself a headache.

  18. END the EMPIRE Says:

    Most of the major media and major “conservative” radio talk shows today are little more than lackeys for New World Order Republicans, and are therefore worthless to the cause of liberty. -Chuck Baldwin

    Also making my “worst” list in 2008 are the many pastors and church members around the country who continued to support one of the worst Presidents in American history: George W. Bush. This man has taken America to the precipice of financial ruin; he has created the foundation for a police state; he has trampled the Constitution and Bill of Rights like no President since Abraham Lincoln; he has used our bravest and best for his sinister plans of interventionist adventurism; he has set the wheels of global government and national socialism in motion, as has no other President (I’m sure Barack Obama will do more than his share to augment socialism in the United States, but remember, it is George W. Bush that has laid the foundation for the acceptance of national socialism). I’m not sure that America will ever truly recover from his Presidency. Yet, a majority of conservative pastors and church members continue to idolize George Bush. What an embarrassment! -Chuck Baldwin

    I wholeheartily second these statements !

  19. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Hall Monitor: coming out of my hands, paws? Head ache, like hair loss? JBS or the UN or Rockerfellers saying one thing and doing another? [Horrors, and for the first time in Human History!]

    ... and You cherry pick [and distort] a few comments out of an encyclopedia of common knowledge. That makes you a friend of liberty and free dom? [on what planet?] YOU can google or ask or yahoo these subjects as well as I.

    LIBERAL republicans…......

    INDEPENDENT political report…...........

    THIRD party watch…..............

    Quit pretending, the gig is up! [As PASTOR Chuck Baldwin, the politician, is becoming aware….....]

    No one is a neocon, yet they are all around. Commies infiltrating our local state and national governments, yet no wide spectrum conspiracy is visable in the last six decades! Billions to fight Communism two decades after it has faded away! Such insanity!

  20. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Oh, I done 4 got, Hall Monitor is ” ‘a liar and a supporter of the Democrats and the Republicans, possibly as an agent provocatuer with [so called] alternative types, and with ‘friends like he and his cabal, the sons and daughters of liberty do not need any enemies.’ ”

  21. Hallmonster Says:

    Well I gave you a chance to “enlighten” me with your wealth of knowledge and it was a complete waste of my time. I’m sorry I expected you to back up your claims without dishing out a bunch of vague nonsense. That’s about all I need from you, thanks for the ride.

    Avoiding my questions + name calling = conversation over.

    Why didn’t anyone else here warn me about this guy? What a waste of time. It’s my own fault, I guess.

    Let me for a minute stoop down to Donald’s level a play around a little with his name. Maybe it will help me see the light:


    ...No, I don’t see the light. I just feel like an idiot now. What a surprise.

    For humanity’s sake, I hope this man doesn’t operate a motor vehicle.

  22. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    ‘So blind, those whom do not wish to see in the first place.’ Live and learn, in the school of Cody Quirk, CT, GE, Italian Pastry, ‘jump thru the hoop while I set up the next useless task’! Yes it your fault you big time liar. Thx for helping out the Dems and GOP! It will not happen again. You wasted my time also.

    At least others have learned the truth, neocons are all over the place and the favorite son of Funky Winkerbean [the patron saint of Hall Monitors] is such a spoofer and sabotuer.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    Sorry but people take me more seriously then you Don.

    I see why the RfP collapsed; people like you ran it.

  24. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    You are such a bliblically based liar! And after thief after thief of other folks’ propriety property and posted under your own name, hardly any one takes you seriously!

    Hey if the Deform Party preaches ‘reform’ while doing ‘political as usual’ then the party deserves to die! If the Israel First Reform Party Jewish Cabal [John Blare, John Dennis Coffey, John Bambey and Valli Sharpe Geisler] of that same faulty organization places the priorities of Jerusalem before the needs of the USA, they deserve to die!

  25. Clark Says:!..(it doesn’t matter what you Republicrat dummies call yourselves when you don’t even know what a fucking ‘dollar’ is!)...(and most/all of you don’t) ;o)

  26. Cody Quirk Says:

    Actually I don’t stick to the Bible only. I’m LDS.


  27. Don Grundmann Says:

    Chuck Baldwin was far too kind in his analysis and hence to ” give credit where it is due ” I present the following :

    Liar Award of 2008 - Ist place - Alan Keyes; 2nd place - Tom Hoefling ( claimed national chairman of Keyes fake political party ); 3rd place - Mark Robinson ( claimed national vice-chairman of same ); 4th place - Mark Seidenberg ( claimed vice-chairman of California AIP ); 5th - Ed Noonan ( former chairman of California AIP ). 2nd through 5th place are interchangable as they are all liars first class and corrupt to the bone and beyond. Yet it is Alan Keyes who ” takes the cake ” as the Champion of Corruption for 2008.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

  28. Jonathan Says:

    in this article Baldwin is exposed fro breaking all records previous so he was the best of 2008

  29. Kenny Says:

    The owners cannot be bothered to update this s(h)ite regularly. It is dead - like Bob Barr’s credibility!

  30. Does the name matter? Says:

    Nearly two weeks since the last comment, exactly four weeks since the last posted article.


Leave a Reply