25 votes

Chuck Baldwin: The Man Who Should Be President

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bladwin is a little too far out there

for my tastes. But hey, is he advocating the theft of your personal sweat labor, to give to who he deems should best receive it?

I'd take a rabid Christian any day of the week, thank you very much.

I'd sooner vote "None of the

I'd sooner vote "None of the above" if those were my only two options... and down voting me for giving my honest point of view is a bit much.

Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul

Isn't Ron Paul a Christian??

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Although a rabid Christian,

Although a rabid Christian, Chuck is also a rabid constitutionalist, a freedom fighter and a great writer. I am not Christian nor do I agree with much of that religion's dogma, hence can not support the constitution party, but would vote for Chuck in a heartbeat if Ron was not running, and he was.

If Baldwin were a real

If Baldwin were a real Constitutionalist, instead of a religionist with questionable Constitutional views, he'd be aligned under a different party and platform. As is, he's a member of the American Taliban as far as I'm concerned and should be ignored with prejudice. Also, I find your use of the term "rabid Christian" to be an unintended delight.

We are fortunate to have statesmen in this country,

like Baldwin and Paul. For Liberty and Constitutional Law these gentlemen have been caring the torch. God Bless America!

President Paul 2012!

With a platform

That refers to gays as "sexual offenders" I will pass on Chuck and the Constitution Party

Their platform would seem to disagree with you.

Here is the portion from the CP website on homosexual relationships:

"We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

All of the above statements oppose the Federal or State Governments being used to ENFORCE RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIAL LEGAL STANDING of these behaviours that are repugnant to many. There is no mention of the freedom to engage in such behaviours or relationships at the risk of the individual. The right to proscribe these behaviours is left to the States where it Constitutionally belongs. It is not clear what is meant by "sexual offenders" but homosexual crimes against young girls and boys may well be in view just as they would be for similar heterosexual offences.

This is surely a position that would possibly be agreed to by Dr. Paul. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act for that very reason, to prohibit the Federal Government imposing requirements on the States to recognise same sex marriages. Each State would be responsible to define these cases individually.

As Dr. Paul has said frequently, just because one tolerates certain behaviours in the name of Liberty does not mean that one endorses them. This is in keeping with the Christian principle to neither condemn the sinner nor condone behaviour that is sinful. One nevertheless ought to have the freedom to speak out about such behaviour and to warn against the consequences of it. To use the power of the State to prohibit such admonition as is being done in many countries today in the name of political correctness is an offence against Liberty. Here is a recent article from Yahoo demonstrating this tendency:


"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

The Constitution Party is a misnomer

and a disgrace to freedom-loving Americans. I nearly gave up on Ron entirely when he endorsed Baldwin in 2008. If I see that happen again, I'll vote for Gary Johnson instead.


You mean to say that despite all that Ron Paul has been able to accomplish, you're willing to abandon him over an endorsement of someone that you don't like? Wow. Ron Paul could endorse Mickey Mouse for all I care... I'm not going anywhere... Ron Paul with alzheimer's disease would do a better job than his colleague's.

"He did not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it." - John 3:17

"Well, you know it's like I always say 'it ain't government work if you don't have to do it twice.'" - Jerry Gergich

Brush up on Gary Johnson. If

Brush up on Gary Johnson. If the idea of an America led by a dogmatic Christian doesn't concern you, then I can't understand why you'd not be willing to support an America led by a 'defend-Israel-at-any-cost' Mormon. Think about it.

In that case

I will give ole Chuck another look. Maybe he is worthy.


Nice! Okay, I'm glad I voted for him in 2008. :)

It's a long read, but

well worth it. Thank you Mr. Baldwin for the "patriotic" bump.