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.)

Republicrat Alternatives, part 4

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I am looking for other alternative candidates to support because, though he is still running, has no chance of winning the GOP nomination and will not be running for President as an independent or third-party candidate. I agree with most of what the Libertarian Party platform says, except on the issue of abortion. I am uncompromisingly pro-life. So when I read that LP candidate Daniel Imperato is calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, I was very eager to read what else he had to say.

Unlike flip-flopping John McCain, Imperato has said that all abortions should be illegal and is calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, saying that this is the only way to protect the unborn. He has moved past pro-aborts Michael Jingozian and Bob Jackson into second place in the running for the LP nomination. I really hope he beats the top LP fundraiser Wayne Allyn Root, who says, “I support gay rights and civil unions,” and “Let's get the federal government out of a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body- this will prevent the death of innocent women at the hands of butchers in back-alleys.” To read more about pro-life Libertarians, click here.

Unlike John McCain, Imperato supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which is another stark departure from the LP platform. He is against sexual orientation based anti-disciminatory laws. McCain, on the other hand, talks out of both sides of his mouth, saying that he is against same-sex civil unions and then saying that he isn’t (in the same interview), and saying same-sex couples should have power of attorney.

Imperato wants to remind Americans that the Bill of Rights was based upon the inalienable rights that were endowed by our Creator. "The fact is that our nation was built on Judeo Christian principles for the people. There is a tremendous movement in our country to get away from our Judeo Christian heritage and principles that is destroying this country. Our nation is one that was built on freedom, justice, democracy and liberty. Without our heritage and our principles, American does not have its strength," stated Imperato.

He went on to say, "The fact of the matter is that, the Ten Commandments only promotes good and not evil. We should not be wasting taxpayer money to remove these items, or to protest these items. Displaying the Ten Commandments, or printing "In God We Trust" on money, does not cause anyone any harm."

His links page includes not only Christian organizations, such as The Christian Coalition, The American Family Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, and family.org, but also Islamic Society of North America and Your Arms to Israel.

On the one hand, Imperato indicated that the government should stay out of education, employment, environment, energy, gun, and health issues. “We the people need to take over,” he wrote. But he is in favor of a national online educational system (no government involvement?) and taxing drugs approved by the FDA and putting the money back into the healthcare system.

He is in favor of eliminating unlimited tax-deductible contributions under 501(c)(3) except to the Social Security Charitable Fund. This would, he believes, help to save Social Security or we can get rid of it so that people can manage their own funds.

He also indicated that all international aid granted by the United States should eventually be eliminated but would still economically support the transitional government in Somalia for the time being. He would decrease legal immigration, but supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and a guest worker program. He said, “I propose joint manufacturing programs, expansion of labor unions and organized labor into Latin America. This will help the people, teach the people, and organize the people, to compete around the world for a Better Americas.”

He said he is hoping for Michael Bloomberg’s endorsement and suggests possibly chosing him as a running mate. (Why?)

He says that he supports the National Election Reform Platform (NERP) which includes uniform ballot access, loosen third party ballot restrictions, universal voter registration, election day holiday, equal media access/debate inclusion, instant runoff voting (IRV), secure voting machines, public campaign financing, direct popular vote election of the president, and DC congressional representation. He says that third parties should set aside some of their ideological differences.
Imperato has called for increased trade, better labor relations, attention to health care concerns and energy efficiency. He is calling for end to bad oil deals and supports the use of alternative fuels to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but does not advocate total energy dependence, because this would make Saudi oil more available to nations like China. Like fellow LP candidate Michael Jingozian, I have seen Imperato’s name on lists of Green Party candidates.

Imperato is a member of the Knights of Malta which allegedly played a role in the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Is there anyone running for President except Ron Paul who isn’t connected with this insidious organization?)

On the war on terror, Imperato says:

“Because of our shifted focus to Iraq, those [terrorist] groups are operating with efficiency and turning the balance of power away from democracy in the region…With the US so engaged in the region now, we need to combine forces with Iran, the Saudis and Afghans to finally go after the terror camps operating in the Pakistani mountains.”

Imperato believes that a possible solution to the problem of terrorism is to call for a cease-fire in Iraq and offer to personally negotiate with Bin Laden. In January of 2006 Imperato said, “I believe that in a democracy under the word of God, our leadership owes the right to Bin Laden to at least hear what his proposal is.”

He believes that the U.S. is entitled to Iraqi oil reserves as compensation for expenses incurred as a result of our military involvement in Iraq.

In conclusion, this guy is weird (and a boring speaker, from what I hear). I don’t like that he is willing to unite with anybody just for the sake of defeating the Repugnants and Democrackpots and he doesn’t seem to be the strict constitutionalist that Ron Paul is. NERP is a bad idea. But given a choice between him, Hillary, Obama, and McCain, I would vote for Imperato in a heartbeat.