Chuck Baldwin (and other possible alternative choices)
(Note: Chuck Baldwin is a “truther,” as I
discuss further down in this entry.)
The one conservative alternative to the Republican presidential nominee this year is Chuck Baldwin, Baptist pastor, radio host, and presidential candidate of the Constitution Party. Baldwin is strong on U.S. sovereignty, against U.S. membership in the U.N., against the North American Union, and so on. All good.
Sadly, like the previous Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka, Baldwin seems to have little or nothing to say about immigration as distinct from illegal immigration.
While most of the issues pages at Baldwin’s website have brief essays laying out his positions, his page on immigration is devoid of content, showing nothing but a photo of him at the Mexican border and one or two newspaper columns on border control. This is not promising.
Here is an interesting point by him in a October 10 article:
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
That’s not bad. In the rest of the article (copied below), he sums up his positions. They sound at least as libertarian as conservative, but, again, he only mentions stopping illegal immigration, nothing about reducing legal immigration. After all these decades, are we STILL at the kindergarten stage of this issue? Even in the case of the one “right-wing, true blue” candidate in the race? Still, if I find nothing actively objectionable about him (as I found Michael Peroutka four years ago), I will consider voting for him. Better that than my next choice, which is to cast a write-in vote for Charles Martel, or, excuse me, since we’re living in contemporary America, Chuck Martel.
Baldwin’s article continues:
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation’s borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding “No” to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America’s global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
“Who is this person?” you ask. Go here to find out:
http://www.baldwin08.com/
As John Quincy Adams said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
*If you appreciate 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:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:
http://www.baldwin08.com/
—end of initial entry—
Ed writes:
I have already voted for Chuck Baldwin. it is the first time I have not voted for the lesser of two evils. Even if he doesn’t mention immigration of third world people per se, at least he isn’t asking to legalize the illegal.
Stewart W. writes:
It’s funny to hear you were considering a write-in for “Chuck Martel.” I have been considering a write in for Geert Wilders, but will probably vote for Chuck Baldwin as well.
Antony Damato, who gave me the idea of voting for Charles Martel, writes:
I wonder if Martel thought of the Moslem hordes the same way he thought of any invading army. Or perhaps he understood just what the Moslems had in mind for the Frankish people—complete cultural reassignment on every level.
Islam is a doctrine not satisfied with conquest of a territory, but total enslavement of the subject population. I would like to know what the medieval opponents and champions of war against Islam thought about the core of Islam. Did they view it as intrinsically evil, more so than any other threat, and so sought to contain it? Or did they simply think of it as organized banditry and criminal? I wonder why Mecca itself was not razed like Carthage. No Cato the Elder constantly reminding people that “Carthage must be destroyed.” Where’s Scipio Africanus or Martel now when you need them?
LA replies:
As seen in the Song of Roland, the medieval poem about a leader in Charlemagne’s army who fights a doomed battle against the Moslems in Spain, the medieval Europeans had very little understanding of Islam. They saw it as horrible and evil, yes, but their notions of it were odd and distorted.
But, notwithstanding their misunderstandings, they didn’t just see Islam as any invading army, they saw it as the antithesis and destruction of Christianity.
Bob writes:
I can’t remember an election when the choices for President were so poor.
I decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin three weeks ago. I agree that he is not strong on legal immigration. However I can live with that, for now. It just feels good to vote FOR someone instead against someone. My hope is that he gets enough votes to make some noise.
Scott H. writes:
It seems from this web site that Mr. Baldwin is tracking pretty good on immigration, legal and illegal. I don’t know why it’s not featured on his main web site, I followed a link to Roy Beck’s site. Baldwin has my write-in vote in California along with both my sons’.
LA writes:
I just found out that Baldwin is a 9/11 “Truther.” So far I haven’t found any comments by him charging that the government did it. But he says there are legitimate “questions” about what happened on 9/11. However, the only “questions” that have been raised are “questions” about how the buildings could have fallen as a result of “merely” being hit by the jet airliners, and “questions” about the explosive sound of the floors collapsing one on another which the “questioners” say indicate that bombs were set in the buildings, and the party they accuse of this is the U.S. government. Meaning that the Bush administration cooperated with Al Qaeda to get them to drive planes into the buildings, but the planes were only a distraction from the real cause of the buildings’ collapse, which was the bombs that had been set in place and were exploded by the government after the planes hit. In any case, on the basis of these “questions,” Baldwin wants another 9/11 investigative commission.
Chuck Baldwin’s “questions” greatly reduce, amend that, they totally eliminate, the likelihood that I would vote for him. Which brings me back to my sentimental choice: a write-in for Charles (Chuck) Martel, the one man who stands for what I stand for.
Gintas replies:
Truther. Great. Just great. Is anyone out there not becoming completely unhinged? (Well, it’s a liberal world, I guess that’s what passes for normal.)
My choice: John III Sobieski, King of Poland.
Gregory F. writes:
Very little else could have won me over more than your write in choice, tom foolery or not, sir.
M. Jose writes:
I must admit that I was not pleased with Baldwin’s answer on that question.
But then again, I am voting for the Party more than for the man. Hopefully if we do well enough we can attract a better class of candidates next time around. I like the Constitution Party platform and see the Party as a means of educating people.
I am going to be charitable and assume that the unanswered questions deal with how we screwed up so badly rather than being about who committed 9/11.
I don’t remember the details, but I recall hearing some things after 9/11 which made me wonder if we had had the hijackers under surveillance beforehand but screwed up and let them get past us (not from malevolence, but from incompetence, and perhaps because no one had seriously considered that something like 9/11 was even possible).
LA replies:
I believe you are being too charitable. When people talk about “questions” they have about what happened on 9/11, they do not mean, “How did we screw up? Why did we allow the Wall to remain in place keeping CIA information from the FBI? Why did we make it so difficult to get a warrant to search the computer of a terror suspect? How come we didn’t pick up on the signs of what was happening?” No, the question they’re talking about is, WHO WAS REALLY BEHIND THE ATTACK? And they already have the answer in mind: George W. Bush, the Israelis, etc.
Joseph C. writes:
I have been mulling over the election alternatives for some time, and as much as I disagree with some of his positions, my vote will go to Chuck Baldwin. Granted, he is not perfect, but his views are closer to mine than anyone else running for President.
I understand why some will go for McCain (MSM, NYT—Arizona), given that he is the (slightly) lesser of the two major party evils, but I cannot, for several reasons:
On the three issues of greatest importance to me (i.e., American sovereignty and security, constitutionalist judges, and free speech), there is no appreciable difference between McCain and Obama. McCain is an invite the world fanatic, has no stomach for the battle to restore constitutionalism to the courts, and given his championing of McCain-Feingold, I have no doubt he would sign a Fairness Doctrine piece of legislation.
As you have pointed out before, the Democrats have to win the presidency some time. Best they do it now, with an unabashed black nationalist and extreme liberal, who will no doubt inherit a recession. We are better off fighting for the soul of the country now than four or eight years from now when the non-white population is even greater.
Obama MAY help revive true conservatism. McCain will CERTAINLY kill it. If we are going to have an enemy of traditionalism, best it be a Democrat, so we can fight him. I hate everything Obama stands for; unfortunately, McCain doesn’t, or if he does, he doesn’t hate it enough.
If whites are not going to fight Obama and the leftists for fear of being called racist, then the country is finished for sure. The sooner we find that out, the better.
McCain not only will ignore the desires of the conservatives who help put him in office, but will take delight in sticking it to them for four years running. Obama MAY incite a civil war within the Democratic party; McCain will certainly incite a civil war within the GOP.
If McCain wins, he will have established a blueprint for the future—i.e., build from the center and work outwards, with the base last. Counting on moderates—who, by their very nature are the least informed and least engaged of the electorate—elevates the unserious to a role of prominence. The worst thing that can happen to America is for the most fickle and ignorant voters to be allowed to set the agenda, which will certainly happen if the McCain strategy is successful.
Either way, We’re Screwed ‘08. But there is a difference. With Obama, you feel like you were raped at knifepoint in a back alley. With McCain, you feel like someone talked their way into your home, plied you with liquor, told you they loved you, then took advantage of you, left you, and bragged to their friends. In other words, you can be either honestly violated or dishonestly violated. I choose the former.
Gintas writes:
Here’s another video, at Reason of all places.
Accompanying text:
Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s candidate for president, snagged his nomination in part because of his connections and friendship to Ron Paul, and his promise to carry on the rEVOLution. That makes it all the more disturbing when we see video of Baldwin indulging in 9/11 kookery. In this video, he first makes clear that he doesn’t trust the conclusions of the Warren Commission, then speculates about the Twin Towers. (How this squares with his first post-9/11 theory, that God punished us by sending attackers, is a mystery to me.)
The search for esoteric explanations is a pervasive theme on the fringes; candidates running in that realm are likely to be that way, or at least appeal to that. It could amount to a nervous tic, or be something sinister.
Baldwin is a protest vote, where he’s solid on some key existential issues for the nation. There’s baggage, but he’s not really going anywhere. Is McCain solid on anything?
Jonathan W. writes:
I personally am supporting Bob Barr. His positions on immigration as listed below look good to me.
* * *
Here is an exchange I had Sean R. on October 23-24. It was his comment that spurred me start this entry about Baldwin. He then he told me about the truther business, which I looked into further.
Sean R. wrote (October 23):
There was a hope on the right that Sarah Palin was a stealth conservative who secretly supported our views, and would try to implement them if she became president. It seems to me that she has definitively laid that fantasy to rest with her support of amnesty (though many on the right probably think that she’s just saying that because she’s McCain’s running mate, and that she REALLY agrees with us, because of the right’s propensity for wishful thinking of this sort).
Personally, I found the idea just barely plausible, and was contemplating voting for McCain, because a faint hope is better than none at all. But now, I intend to vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I know that he has no chance of winning and that some may say I’m throwing away my vote, but it seems to me that a vote for McCain, Obama, or abstaining entirely is also a vote thrown away. At least voting for a third party shows where one stands. If enough people did so, candidates would see that there are votes to be had with these issues, and that they can’t take us for granted.
I believe that you have not mentioned Baldwin. And it’s not just you—there’s been a strange lack of interest in him, despite the fact that he’s the only conservative candidate running this year (Bob Barr appears to have become a real libertarian, and he’s in favor of amnesty.. My question is—why? Do you find him objectionable, or do you just find him too futile to bother with?
LA replied:
I should read him more. I haven’t particularly liked his columns that I’ve read in the past, and so have not been interested in him, but given that he’s the Constitution Party candidate I should definitely read more on him and post on him.
If you know of a handful of pieces by and about him you’d recommend, please send along. Or I guess I could just check him out at Vdare or wherever.
Sean R. replied (October 24):
Thanks.
To be honest, I was never a huge fan of his Vdare articles either. He’s a hardcore evangelical and I’m not. But I’m pretty much a single-issue voter when it come to immigration.
I see that you addressed Baldwin on VFR today. I think that Baldwin is passable on legal immigration—certainly better than anyone else who’s running, short of somebody way out there like the candidate for the National Socialist Movement (and I’m not quite single-issue enough to vote for them). The Constitution Party’s platform calls for a moratorium on legal immigration, but justifies it in terms of not burdening taxpayers with entitlements for them and protecting American workers rather than American culture. On the other hand, it does support English as the official language.
However, after writing to you about him yesterday I realized that you’re probably not a single-issue voter like me, so I thought I’d call your attention to some things you might find objectionable about him:
1) He’s a Paulist. He endorsed Ron Paul, and Ron Paul endorsed him. He favors a Ron Paulesque foreign policy. However, although he favors cutting off aid to Israel, I get the impression that it’s more a matter of him being an isolationist rather than having a specific problem with Israel like Pat Buchanan or Paul Craig Roberts. He writes about Israel here.
2) He’s a 9/11 truther.
Personally, I’m single-issue to overlook things like that, but your mileage may vary.
LA replied:
Thank you for telling me about this.
* * *
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 24, 2008 09:55 AM | Send