Fedup in Florida

Summing up the Election

2008-06-21T09:40:00.003-04:00

Fortunately, there is an alternative- Chuck Baldwin, the candidate of the Constitution Party.

Back after a brief absence

2008-06-17T08:27:00.001-04:00

Had some serious family medical issues that required a lot of time and energy, but they've been resolved (at least for the time being), so I'm back online again.

57 States?

2008-05-11T12:08:00.003-04:00

Well, according to the media-anointed messiah known as Barak Obama seems to think there are...

I don't know whether it was merely a faux pas or if he planning on giving DC, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc., Statehood should he win in November. Maybe it's a combination of both.

But some ingenious person has come up with a way to profit from Obama's 57-State tour- the Obama Flag Lapel Pin:

Who is Chuck Baldwin?

2008-05-09T19:39:00.003-04:00

The Candidate introduces himself...
-----------------------------------
STRICTLY PERSONAL
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
May 9, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Since I just celebrated my 56th birthday (on May 3), it is time for my annual "Strictly Personal" column. I think it only fair that readers should have an opportunity to learn a little something about the person who writes the words they read. Today's column is designed with that goal in mind.

I was born in a small town in northern Indiana. My father and mother were dedicated Christians. Dad was a welder by trade and a lay jailhouse preacher. The Lord delivered him from a terrible life of alcoholism, and the story of his deliverance is nothing short of miraculous.

Readers should know that I will send a cassette tape or CD of my father's life story, free of charge, to anyone who requests it. If you or someone you know struggles with alcohol or drug addiction, I urge you to obtain a copy of this remarkable story.

Dad was the only Baldwin in my clan to leave the South. All the rest of my kin were lifelong Arkansans. I moved South after my Sophomore year of college and have never left.

The Baldwins were all Democrats, and so was I, until Ronald Reagan's candidacy, when I registered as a Republican. Now, however, I am an Independent affiliated with the Constitution Party.

I believe the two major parties are two peas in the same pod or, as Pat Buchanan calls them, "two wings of the same bird of prey." In my opinion, both parties are selling out our constitutional liberties, our independence, and our national sovereignty. At the national level, I can no longer in good conscience support either of them.

Readers should also know that the Constitution Party recently selected me as their 2008 Presidential candidate. My campaign web site is still under construction, but is located here.

Outside of the decision to trust Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, the decision to marry my wife, Connie, is the greatest decision I ever made. She is marvelous! We will celebrate our 35th wedding anniversary next month. She has borne me three wonderful children of whom I could not be prouder.

My oldest child, Sarah Beth, is married to Allan Baker, a structural engineer. She and Allan are the youth leaders in our church. They have three children. Our oldest son, Christopher, owns his own plumbing construction business here in Pensacola. He and his wife, Jana, are also dedicated Christians and serve God with us in our church. They have three sons. Our youngest son, Timothy, was a felony prosecutor with the Florida State Attorney's office, and now owns his own law firm. He, too, is a committed Christian and is the worship leader in our church. Tim is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.

Readers should also know that Tim has an excellent legal review of the USA Patriot Act posted on our web site. Read it.

I believe in the primacy of the local New Testament Church. I have been privileged to serve as the Senior Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, for over thirty-two years now.

I have hosted my own radio programs for more than thirty years. In fact, this column is the outgrowth of my radio talk show program, Chuck Baldwin Live. Here is the web address.

Currently, my radio programs are aired 29 times a week on 8 different stations in the Northwest Florida, Southwest Alabama, and Central Florida areas.

My personal philosophy regarding social/political issues is quite simple. I believe abortion is America's national holocaust. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human life. Furthermore, it is absolutely disgraceful that while the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006, they did nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.

I believe the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is the greatest civil document ever devised by man. I steadfastly support the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence. I believe America's Founding Fathers to be the greatest generation of Christian philosophers and patriots to ever live.

I believe the current attempts by politicians from both parties to ignore and violate the Constitution are unconscionable and draconian attacks against the liberties of the American people and should be vehemently resisted. I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government and big business to steal America's independence. I believe many, if not most, pastors today have become little more than glorified politicians, and I am very disappointed in the way today's national Christian leaders seem to have sold out to political and commercial powers.

I further believe that the current effort to merge the United States into a North American Community, along with the sister-issues of the NAFTA superhighway and the push to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, comprises the greatest threat to America's independence and national sovereignty we have seen since our country's inception. In this regard, I especially appreciate investigative journalist and author Dr. Jerome Corsi, and CNN broadcaster Lou Dobbs. I encourage every American to read and watch carefully what these two men are saying.

I opposed the preemptive invasion of Iraq, and I continue to oppose the occupation of that country. I believe the Bush administration was untruthful about the motivations for going to war with Iraq and continues to deceive the American people to this very day.

I believe the American people have more to fear from Washington, D.C., than they do from Baghdad or Tehran. I believe the United Nations is a sinister organization from which the United States should withdraw. I believe the federal government taxes too much, spends too much, lies too much, and snoops too much into the personal lives of the American people.

Besides Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and the Constitution Party, the only organizations to which I belong are Gun Owners of America, and The National Rifle Association. I especially support GOA, as it is the only Second Amendment advocacy group that refuses to compromise for the sake of political correctness.

My favorite news magazine is The New American. I heartily recommend that every American read it.

If I have a hobby, it would be hunting and freshwater fishing, although I don't get to do either as much as I would like. In fact, I recently sold my bass boat, as it was about to fuse itself to my driveway due to inactivity. I am probably what people would call a workaholic. I do not drink or smoke. In addition, I adhere to a strict diet and exercise regimen.

There it is. That is me in a nutshell. If you want to read more details about me, click here.

At least now you know more about who I am. You can rest assured that everything I write will be faithful to the beliefs mentioned above. And as always, thanks for reading my columns.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Source: NewsWithViews.com

Old but Important News Item

2008-05-09T10:57:00.002-04:00

Conservative Christians revisit third party
McCain nomination turns eyes toward the Constitution Party
The Associated Press
updated 9:58 a.m. ET Feb. 14, 2008

The same conservative Christian activist who called a meeting last fall to discuss backing a third-party candidate to counter a possible Rudy Giuliani candidacy is revisiting the idea as Sen. John McCain closes in on the Republican presidential nomination.

Bob Fischer, a South Dakota businessman and anti-abortion activist, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that while he could back the Arizona senator over either Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, he made clear that he and others in the evangelical movement are not content with those choices.

"I'll be working in other ways to see that we have additional choices as conservatives," Fischer said.

He declined to elaborate, but held out hope that Mike Huckabee might mount an improbable comeback, or that another "good conservative, Godly, Christian pro-life" GOP candidate somehow emerge to supplant McCain. The Arizona lawmaker has opposed abortion during his four terms in the Senate.

Third-party strategy
Fischer also volunteered an alternative scenario: supporting the nominee of the fledgling Constitution Party.

Although some conservative Christian activists are warming to McCain, Huckabee's success with that voting bloc in recent primaries and caucuses shows that much work remains for McCain.

Several Christian conservative leaders dismiss renewed talk of a third-party strategy, but any significant loss of conservative Christian voters could spell trouble for McCain in a close general election.

"Some of these folks might be trying to send a signal to McCain," said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University. "There are also some people in that movement who believe McCain is hopeless. And they're not bluffing."

Thin margin a concern
McCain already faces danger if conservative Christians are not energized about his candidacy, and the prospect of a third-party candidate siphoning off even a half-percentage point of McCain support could be a difference-maker, Rozell said.

Last fall, Fischer called a meeting in Salt Lake City as Christian conservative leaders attended a separate gathering of the ultra-secretive Council for National Policy, an umbrella group for the movement.

Most attendees of Fischer's meeting, including Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, agreed to support a minor-party candidate if Giuliani emerged as the Republican nominee, according to Dobson and others in attendance. Another group suggested creating a new party, but no consensus emerged, Dobson wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times.

Meeting in the works
Several Christian conservative leaders, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Fischer has invited them to a follow-up meeting next month in New Orleans coinciding with another Council for National Policy meeting.

Fischer would not confirm nor deny a meeting, but said, "If I told you we were, I think the success of that meeting would be greatly compromised."

Mat Staver, who heads the conservative Christian legal group Liberty Counsel, said blunting McCain with a minor-party candidate has scant support because McCain is much closer to social conservatives on issues than Giuliani.

Former GOP presidential candidate and conservative Christian Gary Bauer, who endorsed McCain this week, also was dismissive: "I think the third-party idea has effectively gone the way of all bad ideas," Bauer said.

The Constitution Party
Fischer said that for large numbers of social conservatives to entertain backing McCain, he would need to reverse himself on several positions, including his support for relaxing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Fischer said if McCain prevails short of doing that, he and many other conservatives "will not work as hard as we could" to elect him.

He then raised the possibility of Christian conservatives lining up behind the Constitution Party, citing its conservative moral stances and ability to get on state ballots, a steeper challenge for an entirely new party.

The Constitution Party, which calls itself "completely pro-life, pro-gun, pro-American sovereignty and independence," has secured spots on about 16 state ballots and hopes to exceed 40, national field director Gary Odom said. The party has nominated founder Howard Phillips as its presidential candidate in the past and will select its candidate in April.

Said Fischer: "The Republican Party needs to remember that (the Constitution Party) will nominate a conservative. If the Republican Party wants to avoid defeat in November, they need to do the same. There are no votes to waste in this election."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23163724/for/cnbc/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 CNBC.com

Missouri Viewpoints- Interview with Chuck Baldwin

2008-05-08T12:42:00.002-04:00

A great interview with Chuck Baldwin is online at Missouri Viewpoints.

What a Baldwin Presidency Would Look Like

2008-05-03T10:43:00.003-04:00

in the Candidate's own words...
-------------------------------

If I Were President
by Chuck Baldwin
May 2, 2008

Due to my frequent criticisms of President George W. Bush, I am often asked what I would do if I were President of these United States. This column will serve as an attempt to answer that question.

If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America. If such a thing happened to our beloved country, I'm sure many of us would also become "insurgents."

In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.

According to Congressman Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

Had President Bush responded in this manner, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, trillions of dollars would not have needed to be spent, Osama bin Laden and most of his fellow terrorists would likely be dead, and we would not be bogged down in a nightmarish military quagmire in Iraq. And, if I were President, this is exactly how I would handle terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.

If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.

Republicans tout themselves as being "pro-life." Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world's policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations.

Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the "peace and credibility of the United Nations." (I lie not; that is what he said.) President Bush also placed the U.S. back under UNESCO in spite of the fact that President Reagan had heroically taken the U.S. out from under that sinister organization.

I am sure that readers recall that the U.N. Charter was authored by a Soviet communist agent (Alger Hiss) and that the U.S. has been fighting wars for the U.N. ever since the organization was created back in 1945.

Speaking of the United Nations, as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.'s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste.

By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO. There is no reason why Russia could not become a friend and ally of the United States. Free and fair trade with Russia and a noninterventionist foreign policy in Europe would do much to endear American interests to Russia. To insist on expanding and empowering NATO only serves to further alienate Russia and drive her to make alliances with Communist China.

Speaking of China, it is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America's jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. "Free trade" will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.

Furthermore, as President, I would take the preservation of our nation's sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.

As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.

There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country's battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority, if I were President.

If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority, if I were President.

On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments). There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).

We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.

Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into!

I would also work to repeal the "death tax," inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.

Now, I hear people say, That's easy for you to say; you are not a candidate for President. Ah, but now I am.

Last week, in its national nominating convention in Kansas City, Missouri, the Constitution Party nominated me as its 2008 Presidential candidate. Party delegates nominated me over Ambassador Alan Keyes by a margin of 74% to 24%. Therefore, I am now a candidate for President of these United States.

See the CP website at http://www.constitutionparty.com

My Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

Our web site is not online yet, but will be soon. We will be able to receive credit card donations when the web page is uploaded. The address of my campaign web site is: http://www.baldwin2008.com

In the meantime, if anyone wants to support our campaign, checks may be written to:

Baldwin 2008
P.O. Box 131
Palmyra, New Jersey 08065

I believe it is only fair, as I continue to write these columns, that one understands the full disclosure of my candidacy.

As readers know, I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate.

I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the "evil of two lessers" being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!

In the meantime, these columns will continue to serve as a voice for America's founding principles, as they have for the past eight-plus years. In addition, unlike the candidates from the two major parties, the taxpayers are not underwriting my campaign, and I will continue my day job. (Imagine that: a Presidential candidate who actually works for a living!) And all of this is just in time for my 56th birthday, which is tomorrow, May 3.

There you have it: this is what I would do if I were President of these wonderful United States of America.

Source: Chuck Baldwin Live

Quote of the Day

2008-05-01T08:26:00.001-04:00

Samuel Adams said, It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

Are you irate yet?

WND Interview with Chuck Baldwin

2008-04-30T08:21:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-29T13:45:00.004-04:00

(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

2008-04-28T09:39:00.001-04:00

Constitution Party has its nominee

2008-04-27T13:29:00.004-04:00

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

2008-04-18T16:19:00.004-04:00

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

2008-04-18T14:57:00.001-04:00

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

2008-04-18T14:22:00.000-04:00

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.