WND Interview with Chuck Baldwin

Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin was recently interviewed by WorldNetDaily. If you don't think you have a real choice in November, you'll think otherwise after reading this interview.

---------------------------------

Wednesday, April 30, 2008
ELECTION 2008 Q&A
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Baldwin: I would bring our troops home
Constitution Party candidate says enemy uses 'occupation' as recruiting tool
Posted: April 29, 2008
10:15 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note: This is one in a series of question-and-answer sessions with candidates for the office of president. Today, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin says this could be the year for a third-party candidate.


WND: What is your assessment of the 2008 presidential race? Typically, third-party candidates have struggled even to get attention.

Baldwin: I think this year is different from anything that we've ever experienced in my lifetime. I think the American people are extremely fed up with the two major parties. I don't believe that any of the main three candidates, John McCain, Hillary or Obama, have captured the loyalty of the American people. I think the electorate is totally open to alternative candidates and ideas this year. I think furthermore there is a deep distrust and suspicion among the American people that the two major parties have their best interests at heart. Therefore I think the opportunity is wide open for an independent or a third-party candidate to do well. As to what the outcome will be, that's in the hands of God. But I do believe this is an historic opportunity for third-party or independent party candidates.

WND: Don't people forget the Republican Party started out as a third-party?

Baldwin: When Abraham Lincoln ran his party was just a young party, a third party or an independent party. Of course then it became a dominant party when he won the election in 1860. Remember, too, that in that race there were four major candidates running for the office of president, and he won with 39 percent of the popular vote, so you don't have to have a majority of the popular vote to win, and I do believe that we are hopefully seeing the beginning of the end of the two-party monopoly on our political process. Our country was not founded on political parties. Our country was founded on principles, bedrock principles, and as the party serves the country, they can be beneficial, but when the party ceases to serve the country they should be discarded. If you read Washington's farewell address, you will see he very emphatically warned the American people about an over-infatuation with political parties. He talked about how sometimes the propensity is for people to put the party interests above the country's interests, and I think that's what the Republicans and the Democrats have been doing for many years, but I think it's more apparent to the American people this year.

WND: What should and could the United States be doing in the war on terror?

Baldwin: The first thing that I would if I were elected president would be to begin the process of bringing our troops home from Iraq. I do not believe that the war in Iraq is serving to make our country safer. I think just the opposite. The longer we occupy Iraq, the more the enemy uses that occupation as a recruiting tool for those that would hurt us. I think our presence in Iraq is the biggest asset that al-Qaida and whatever other terrorists are over there have and they are using those troops to their advantage. I do believe we must secure our borders and our ports. It is absolutely asinine to think we would send troops to the Middle East to fight terrorism while at the same time, leave our own country's borders wide open to potential terrorists sneaking across those borders that may do us harm. The first thing we need to do is seal our borders and our ports, to ensure that we will no longer make our country vulnerable to potentialsterrorists and then I would bring the troops home as expeditiously as possible. Obviously there would have to be a plan in place to do that so that we could do that safely, but to bring those troops home and be sure that we no longer provide the catalyst that I think we have in the past in being perceived as an aggressor in other nations' affairs.

WND: What about the nation's response to illegal immigration?

Baldwin: We have to close the border, and we can close the border. We can do it with a fence or we can do it without a fence. We have troops, National Guard troops, over in the Middle East that are protecting the borders of Iraq and other countries by the way, yet we're not protecting our own borders. Whether we do it with a fence or not, we must close that border. We must seal it shut. Secondly, we must punish those employers who are hiring illegal aliens. You cut off the food source, the food supply, and make it clear to employers that if they hire illegal aliens they are going to jail. It's not just pay a fine, it's going to jail. They are no longer going to be able to use slave labor in order to increase the profits for their companies. They're going to have to abide by the law. They're going to have hire people who are in the country legally, and do it the way it's supposed to be done. We're going to make sure we seal that border so that not just terrorists but MS-13 and the other gangs that are beginning to blossom in that part of the region no longer have a fertile field to grow.

WND: What's your perspective on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?

Baldwin: There's several ways you can go about this . First I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to pressure Congress to pass Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which he has introduced into the Congress every year. This act would do two things. No. 1 it would take out from the courts jurisdiction over abortion, which means Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Secondly, it would identify unborn persons as persons under the law. Right now that distinction is not known, and unborn children are not classified as people and that's how Roe vs. Wade can stand. Ron Paul's deal would negate both of those. It would eliminate the jurisdiction of the courts ... and then No. 2, it would declare the personhood of the unborn child. The other thing is that if Congress refuses to act, I would use the power of the executive branch to [stop] funds to enforce Roe vs. Wade.

WND: What's your perspective of the federal Marriage Amendment?

Baldwin: I know that a lot of my pro-family friends that don't agree with me on this. They don't see the danger of this. If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don't that's a good idea. I don't think that's a necessary approach. First of all I support the Defense of Marriage Act that was already was passed by Congress and signed by then-President Clinton. So it's already the federal law that they recognize marriage is between a man and a woman. That's already been done and I support that. I also believe that the states have the right and I would defend the rights of the state to protect that definition of a man and woman for legal marriage. In other words, they would not be forced to accept another state's definition, say Massachusetts or another liberal state that would try to redefine marriage.

WND: What should the U.S. be doing to protect its own economy?

Baldwin: First of all you're not going to solve the economic problems by printing more worthless money and throwing it into the money supply. All that does is tend to devalue the dollar even further which increases inflation, increases the price of everything. That does no good. It's an immediate feel-good approach, but it does nothing in the long run to solve the problem. First of all the war in Iraq. We're talking about a war that's taking trillions, not billions, trillions of dollars out of our economy. When that is over and we bring our troops home and we're no longer expending those funds, for those purposes, obviously that's a huge savings, from an economic point of view. Secondly, I really believe we've got to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I think so much of the economic crisis we're in today is related directly to the cost of gas and the oil pressures that are now being felt. The dollar's dropping. oil's rising, inflation's rising, unemployment's rising, and I believe we've got to get a handle on that. The way we've got to do that is get the government out of the energy business. I would dismantle the Department of Energy. I would get the government out of it. We need to get businesses pumping more oil again. We've got to open up the oil wells that we already know are there, and we've got to drill for new oil. We know that in Alaska, for example, there is enough oil under the soil of Alaska to take care of our energy needs for the next 150-200 years. There's more oil in Alaska than there is in Saudi Arabia. We've just discovered huge oil and gas deposits in the Dakotas, we've discovered huge oil and gas deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. Nuclear energy. We haven't built a nuclear plant in what? 35 years or more? We've got to get our country producing again. We need to cut our dependence on OPEC, Venezuela and these other foreign interests. And I do think, I know we can do it, it's just a matter of having the will to do it. And so far neither political party has the will to do this. I would have the will do it.

WND: What other issues will your campaign focus on?"

Baldwin: The biggest threat that faces America is not found in Tehran or Baghdad or any other country. I believe that our biggest threat is in Washington, D.C. I really believe that our nation is fast becoming a nation that does not respect the freedoms and liberties that this country was founded upon. George Bush's Patriot Act ... in essence eviscerated the Fourth Amendment and did serious damage to other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I do believe that this burgeoning North American Union that Dr. Corsi has written so much about in your newspaper is a real threat to our national sovereignty and our national independence . I do believe that the determination to merge America into a regionalized government with Mexico and Canada is very real. And I think that it is very real and I think it's progressing at a very fast pace. The day that I take office that new world order comes crashing down. There's no North American community. We're getting out of NAFTA. There's no NAFTA superhighway. There's no NAU or any of that. We will retain the integrity of our national sovereignty and our national independence, and to me that is a very high priority.

Ronald Reagan said a nation without boundaries is not a nation, and he's exactly right, and that's what's happening. The boundaries between our three countries are being blurred almost to the point they don't exist any more. and I believe it's deliberate, and I will put a stop to it. I'm opposed to it with every ounce of energy in my being. If God would smile on our endeavors and would somehow put us in the White House you can count on it that we will maintain the integrity of our national sovereignty and independence.

Alan Keyes- Not the Right Man for the Constitution Party

(Before continuing, here's my disclaimer- the thoughts reflected herein are my own (unless noted). The Constitution Party is in no way responsible for the content of this blog.)

To paraphrase from an earlier post, I am extremely happy that Chuck Baldwin won the Constitution Party nomination. I have never been comfortable with Alan Keyes, and had he became the CP nominee for President of the United States, I wouldn't have voted for him.

The following blog post by Thomas DiLorenzo pretty much sums up my disdain and distrust of Keyes...

re: Chuck Baldwin Defeats Alan Keyes
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at April 26, 2008 02:17 PM

Good for my old friend Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party for preventing yet another neocon takeover of a traditional conservative, limited government organization -- the Constitution Party. Keyes is the quintessential Neocon insider: He was a student of the flamboyant "Straussian" Alan Bloom at Cornell, and lived in the same house as Bloom, along with several other male neocons who called the womens' dress-wearing Bloom "master."; he studied at Harvard under Straussian neocon Harvey Mansfield; and he entered national politics as a sidekick of neocon UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick during the Reagan years.

Shortly after the publication of The Real Lincoln in 2002 Howard Phillips had me on his local cable TV show in Virginia to discuss the book. During one of the breaks he mentioned that he had asked Keyes to join the Constitution Party and he declined, saying that he agreed with just about everything the Party stood for except for its criticisms, mostly from Howard, of Lincoln. Lincoln idolatry is, of course, the defining characteristic of a Straussian Neocon Warmonger like Keyes, for The Legend of Father Abraham is what "justifies" the American empire and its expansion.

Chuck Baldwin Accepting Constitution Party's Nomination

Constitution Party has its nominee

At the Constitution Party National Convention, Chuck Baldwin easily out-tallied Alan Keyes to secure the Party's nomination for the November election. He's got my vote.

I wish Ron Paul had been amenable to accepting the nomination when it was offered, but I have no qualms in voting for Baldwin. I can't say the same about Keyes, but that's a topic for another posting.

For more information on the Constitution Party, visit their website at http://www.constitutionparty.com/, and to learn more about Chuck Baldwin, see Chuck Baldwin Live.

-------------------------------------------
Posted on Sat, Apr. 26, 2008 10:15 PM
Constitution Party chooses talk-show host
over Keyes for presidential nomination
By STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star

Meeting in Kansas City on Saturday, the Constitution Party tapped talk show host Chuck Baldwin over former ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential nominee.

The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes’ higher national profile. Known for his fiery stemwinders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Constitution Party, which stands for limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

But Baldwin’s roots in the Constitution Party run deeper. He was the party’s 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.

Still, the two waged a fierce battle in the days leading up to the vote, described as the most contentious in the party’s 16-year history. Baldwin wound up winning easily, 384-126. The Missouri and Kansas delegations basically split their votes between the two.

“They just rejected the most qualified man to be president,” said Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa, who is Keyes’ national political director. “Chuck Baldwin will have no impact on this election whatsoever.”

But Baldwin backers said the party was committed to remaining true to its values and growing itself from the inside. That approach will better sustain the party over the long run, said delegate Thom Holmes of Chandler, Okla., even though Keyes might have drawn more votes.

In his acceptance speech, Baldwin said his presidency would be committed to halting abortion and illegal immigration, the streamlining of the federal government, the tapping of oil reserves in Alaska that would lead to a return of $1.50-a-gallon gas prices and withdrawal from Iraq.

Baldwin pledged not only to pull out of the U.N., but also to push the international organization out of the country.

He said he would phase out the Internal Revenue Service and end the paying of personal income taxes. He said the country should return to the gold standard.

Source: The Kansas City Star

Tancredo Tells Pope to Mind His Own Business

Kudos to Congressman Tancredo for telling the Pope to butt out of our business where illegal aliens are concerned. The former GOP candidate was far more respectful than I would have been.




You know that neither the Republican nor Democratic nominees will do anything about the growing catastrophic problem of illegal immigration. The United States is being invaded by a foreign enemy (Mexico) who is being aided by a domestic enemy (Bush and his cronies). While there may be found those among the GOP and Democrats who are trying to secure our borders and stem the tide of illegal immigration (Tancredo, Hunter, Shuler, etc.), there is only one party who, as a whole, is firmly committed to putting an end to this all-out onslaught against our national security and sovereignty- the Constitution Party.

Take a few moments and read the Immigration Plank from the Constitution Party Platform...

Immigration
We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.

Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many illegal aliens enter the United States. These immigrants - including illegal aliens - have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax burden, and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the American worker and the labor balance in our country.

We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.

We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.

We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States.

We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.

We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

We oppose bilingual ballots. We insist that those who wish to take part in the electoral process and governance of this nation be required to read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship. We support English as the official language for all governmental business by the United States.

Don't throw your vote away this November. Don't try to choose between two equal evils, but vote for the candidate and party who will deliver real change to Washington and America- the Constitution Party.

Revisiting Waco

It's hard to believe, but it's been 15 years since the seige on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX. A recent column by Chuck Baldwin relates the lessons we must learn from this debacle which needlessly and criminally caused the deaths of many innocent women and children. If we don't heed the warnings and learn the lessons Waco can teach us, there will be another Waco- then another, and another, and another- until the enemies of the ruling elite have all be destroyed.

Below is the column in it's entirety.
----------------------------------------------

THERE MUST NEVER BE ANOTHER WACO!
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
April 18, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

On February 28, 1993, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF, now known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or BATFE) began their assault on the home of the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas. An unarmed David Koresh was shot by the agents as he stepped onto his front porch. A shootout resulted with several deaths on both sides.

Shortly afterward, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took charge of the situation, and on April 19, 1993 agents from both departments (utilizing military hardware and both U.S. and foreign military advisers) assaulted the dwellings, which resulted in the deaths of 80 American citizens. Most of the victims were old men, women, and small children.

The events at Waco have contributed to the disdain of federal abuse of power like nothing since the Boston Massacre back in 1770. (By comparison, the British killed 5 Americans in that assault.) Moved by grassroots pressure, the Congress of the United States convened special hearings into the conduct of those federal agencies responsible for the Waco debacle. The result was less than satisfactory to many Americans.

The congressional hearings, along with eyewitness testimony and subsequent infrared video of the events at Waco led many to believe that federal agents were allowed to lie under oath with impunity. It is a fact that crucial evidence was conveniently "lost" by federal agents. Worse still was the release of videotapes of the events by investigative reporters showing the utter absurdity and duplicity of the government's account of the tragedy.

At the end of the hearings, questions remained unanswered, and no one within the federal government was held accountable. Davidians who survived the raid were tried for murder. A jury found them innocent, but no charges were ever brought against any federal agents.

Whatever one thinks of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, they had committed no capital crimes. Neither could the charges of child abuse, illegal weapons, or illegal drug activity (charges that were used by the feds to justify their raid) be substantiated.

Furthermore, it is unconscionable (not to mention a violation of U.S. law as prescribed in the Posse Comitatus Act--a law that President Bush recently had the audacity to expunge, by the way) that tanks and other military equipment would be used against mostly women and children within our own country. The bizarre tactics employed by the BATF and FBI at Waco are unfathomable and unforgivable! Our government has been more lenient and patient when dealing with many of America's deadliest enemies than it was in dealing with those poor Davidians.

There must never be another Waco!

God-given, constitutional liberties apply to every American, even those who are considered strange or unconventional. Under no circumstances must we allow federal agencies (or any other agencies, for that matter) to circumvent the laws of our nation that protect individual life and liberty. And, unfortunately, with the advent of the Patriot Act, the federal government has far more power and authority--and individuals have far less freedom and protection--than in 1993. This portends an even more ominous future for liberty.

The demands of liberty and justice rest upon us all. Certainly, Congress plays a part. Their investigation into Waco was inept, to say the least. The media also plays an important role. They have the power to inform; they also have the power to sedate. Absent a love for truth and justice by a lackadaisical media and a cowardly Congress, the fires of Waco still burn in the heart of the American conscience.

Beyond that, under the Bush administration, we have watched the size and scope of the federal government burgeon to proportions never before seen. It seems clear that we have entered an era of unlimited and unbridled federal power and authority. Can we assume, therefore, that more Wacos are on the horizon?

It is incumbent upon each of us to seriously ponder our future. It is imperative that each of us be willing to study, once again, the great principles upon which this country was built. Such a study demands that we re-familiarize ourselves with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must re-read our Declaration of Independence. We must read the words of wisdom and warning delivered by our Founding Fathers. In short, we must be completely familiar with the principles of liberty, because those principles made us, and those principles will keep us. Without them, liberty's future is about as permanent as the wooden buildings at Mt. Carmel. Without them, the fire of tyranny will reduce us to the cinders of obscurity as surely as did the fire outside Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993.

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

credit: NewsWithViews.com

Media Disrespect

The media elites are at it again. Time Magazine has co-opted one of the greatest images- the raising of the US Flag at Iwo Jima- and replaced Old Glory with a tree.

The mainstream media (hereafter, "MSM") continues its assault on all things sacred and all things American, as they work hand-in-hand with the globalist elite who wish to destroy this Country to portray patriotic, God-fearing people as crackpots and bigots. If a white man is proud of his heritage, he's a racist; if one opposes the flood of illegals pouring over the border, he's a bigot; if one opposes "gay marriage," they're a homophobe. Anyone who stands up for the principles and morals on which this Country was founded is in the line of fire.

I love my Country- but the US doesn't look like my Country anymore. It's the Country of elitism, globalism, and political correctness. The political parties are no help- both major parties are in bed with the same people as the MSM. What a choice they want us to have in November- on the GOP side, we have an amnesty supporter who is weak on social issues and wants to keep us bogged down in Iraq for the next hundred years; on the Socialist side... oops, I mean the Democratic side, we have our choice between 2 equally evil candidates, who both want to sell our sovereignty to the Mexicans, allow unfettered access to abortion at any time and for any excuse, put gay "marriage" on the same plane as heterosexual unions, and spend us into the ground even more than the Bush Administration has done. To paraphrase Chuck Baldwin, the choice between McCain and Obama/Clinton is like having to choose between Nero and Caligula. There is no "lesser of two evils" here- it's a choice between equal evils.

God help us- because neither the politicians, nor the media, nor Corporate America, nor the apostate American "church" will do what is right.