Baldwin, Barr, or None of the Above

I took a couple weeks off of blogging because of a statement made by another contributor to this blog (Sam) which seemed to question whether or not I was a real Christian. I wrote a brief response to this, and I still don't know quite how to further respond to this except to say that I hope that he will take back this statement. But even if he doesn't, I have decided to resume contributing to this blog. I appreciate very much the response of the other contributor (GregJaye) to what was said. In my last post, I had discussed the original statement which you two found so objectionable about McCain being even worse than Nader and McKinney (as if it really mattered). I ended with a statement that I would discuss the merits and drawbacks of supporting either Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr.

As far as Chuck Baldwin is concerned, I am reluctant to endorse him because he did not follow through with a promise made about bringing up the issue of the Nevada Independent Party disaffiliation at a National Committee Meeting of the Constitution Party. Even though he eventually voted yes on it, it was done reluctantly and he chose a running mate (Darrell Castle) who voted no on the NIP disaffiliation. This shows that when push comes to shove, he gives in to political pressures. The glorification of the Confederacy doesn’t help either. But if he would just say that he was wrong to break his promise, admit that his choice of a running mate was bad, and say that his disgust for Abraham Lincoln’s overbearing tactics clouded his judgment about a nation with a racist Constitution, I could vote for him. Voting for someone who would live up to Baldwin's ideology if elected would be a no-brainer for me.

I have heard that Bob Barr paid for an abortion, but also that he denies this accusation (made by Larry Flint of all people). (If anyone reading this can shed more light on this issue, please comment). I saw a survey sheet in which Barr indicated that he believed that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. This was dated eight years ago. I have also heard (from the Free-Choicers) that Barr is cozy with neoconfederates. I would be willing to vote for him if he were to repent of paying for the abortion (if he really did it) and renounce the position he took in 2000. He has changed a lot of his positions since 2000 (e.g. the Patriot Act, the war), but he makes no mention of the abortion issue on his website--so I assume that this issue is not that important to him. (But click here and scroll to the bottom.) His running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, is also less than appealing, but I don’t know if he was Barr’s choice or if he was chosen according to the Libertarian Party rules. (The top fund-raiser is the one who gets the nomination in the LP. Root came in second, I think.)

Third Party Candidates Unite

Having lost the bid for the Republican nomination for president, Ron Paul has made it clear that he will not run for president as an independent. But three days ago, he set up a press conference with presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney. Each candidate (including Bob Barr, who did not attend the event) agreed to a set of political principles, which go against principles that both Barack Obama and John McCain have espoused. The statement of these principles is below. Though Ron Paul says not to vote for either O’Cain or McBama, he does not officially endorse any of these four candidates. I don’t endorse any of them either, but I would rather have any of them as president than either of the two republicrats. Here are their campaign websites:

http://www.votenader.org/

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

http://baldwin08.com/

http://votetruth08.com/

At the press conference, mention was made of a website which promotes the idea of voting for third party or independent candidates rather than the “lesser of two evils”. The idea is that someone leaning towards voting for McCain, but only because he thinks Obama is worse, could make a deal with someone who thinks that Obama is the lesser of two evils. They would both agree to vote for a third party candidate instead. Someone might say, “But how can I trust the person with whom I am making this deal that they will really vote for the third party candidate instead of Obama or McCain?” The website addresses this issue in several ways, but there is one that I find to be both very helpful and intriguing. BOTH YOU AND YOUR “VOTE BUDDY” WOULD FILL OUT ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND MAIL THEM IN AT THE SAME TIME! What a great idea! You can read more about this here.

Here is the set of principles on which the four candidates agreed:

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

source: campaignforliberty.com

Constitution Party Nominee for President

Chuck Baldwin has gotten the nod from the Constitution Party to be their 2008 presidential candidate. Too bad. He is the worst of the bunch. I agree with what he says about illegal immigration, the North American Union, one world order, the Patriot Act, etc. But I am not a neoconfederate, and I don’t want to vote for someone who speaks about principles and ideology, but when it comes down to a tough decision, he has to be begged to make the right choice. Read my previous post to see what I am talking about.

There doesn’t seem to be much hope for a good candidate to come out the Libertarian Party either. But there may be another alternative, who I will write about in the coming weeks. Keep reading the Thursday edition of this blog to see who this mystery candidate is.

Republicrat Alternatives, part 1

It doesn’t take too much digging to see that the top three remaining contenders in the Republicrat and Democan Parties are thoroughly wicked and will run this country into the ground with all of their destructive New World Order convictions. With Ron Paul having no chance to win the GOP nomination, its time to start thinking about independent and third-party candidates. I will begin a series of articles this week on possible third party candidates that I might vote for. I will start with Constitution and Libertarian Party candidates first, and examine the independents and smaller party candidates later. I will start with the Constitution and Libertarian Party candidates that I would least likely vote for. (I will not include those who I would definitely not vote for, because they are so numerous.) The first on the docket is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

I agree with what he says here, but I have two problems with Chuck.

First of all he is a neoconfederate, which is what makes me regret having voted for Michael Peroutka in 2004. Chuck was Peroutka’s running mate. Read what Chuck says about the confederacy here. Read more about what this is about here.

Secondly, according to some on the committee of Principled Policy, Chuck’s arm had to be twisted to vote to disaffiliate the Nevada Independent Party for running candidates that were less than 100% pro-life. (Log in to yahoo and click here and here to read more.)

Here is Chuck’s website if you want to read more about what he says.