HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING

   

Chuck Baldwin Outlines What He Would Do, if Elected President

I believe more Daily Paul readers should read what the nominee says in his own words. Many people have a misconception of the Constitution Party as a group on a moralistic crusade, when it is clear their priorities are not in that area.

Chuck Baldwin Outlines What He Would Do, if Elected President:

***

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.constitutionpa...

output

Comment viewing options

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

The Logical Extension

of the Ron Paul Freedom Revolution ....
"Chuck Baldwin opens his mouth and Ron Paul falls out"

www.baldwin2008.com

I understand a new updated website is on it's way!

campaign for liberty!

see you in september

Excellent!

Baldwin is definately made of the right stuff. My fingers are crossed!!!

We are now starting to

We are now starting to upload radio interview archives on the web site and you can Hear Chuck Baldwin's Interview here :

http://www.revolutionbroa...

www.revolutionbroadcastin...

www.revolutionmarch.com

Dr. Steve Parent

Very Cool

everyone should go there and listen to the CB interview
and familiarize yourself with him....

he really is pro Constitution, personal liberty, smaller government,
noninterventionist foreign policy, check him out!

He may just get my vote

He may just get my vote if I dont write-in Ron Paul in November.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

Looks like a very apropos

post for the DailyChuck. Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a darn.

IT'S DOABLE

thnk you again Kevin

________________________________________________________________

Video message from Dr. Chuck Baldwin to all his fellow Revolutionaries
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Thanks for the read.

Thanks for the read.

Sounds pretty good to me

Except for his trade policies. Stop trading with China? Really? That would put billions of Chinese people out of work and make 70% of everything in our economy go up in price.

Oh, and the oil thing I don't like either. I've taken a couple of economics courses and they all said that drilling for oil here would be a bad idea because we should only use up our oil if there's no oil left anywhere else in the world.
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul

Man

The Barr folks hate Baldwin. Kind of like two camp's fighting while we hang back with Ron Paul and watch them tear each other apart. I lean more towards Baldwin. Well because so to does Ron Paul.

I don't hate Baldwin

My main reason for choosing Barr is simply because it would be easier to get his polling numbers up to get him in the debates, which requires 15% polling. I think Baldwin's name recognition is too low to and doesn't have the resources the Libertarian Party has, to get him to that level. Neither candidate is a perfect fit for me and neither is Dr. Paul; I simply give my support to whomever can get the general message of liberty in the debates and in the news.

By the way, what's your evidence that Paul leans more towards Baldwin?

**************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).

Sad to say, I can't vote for Baldwin...

I was just on his site, doing some research, trying to figure out who to vote for now that Dr. Paul isn't in the race. I haven't looked into Barr too much yet, although I love the Libertarian platform. I had heard that he voted for the Patriot Act, and whatever his reasoning was, I disagree with that. I also heard that his VP is a neo-con, and although I haven't looked into that issue yet, those things turned me off. Anyway, I really liked Baldwin's stances on the issues that he outlined, although as someone else mentioned, I'm not quite as anti-abortion as he or Dr. Paul are although I've been pushed in that direction recently. I was extremely happy with his views on the Patriot Act, foreign policy, eminent domain, and most other areas.

My problem is, the war on drugs is an extremely important issue. I can't support someone who doesn't see a need to completely end the war on drugs and allow adults to put whatever they choose in their own bodies so long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. If they commit a crime under the influence of a drug, no matter what that drug is, cocaine or ritalin, they should be charged for the crime, not the drug use. From what I see, Baldwin doesn't understand this issue.

I also can't support anyone who thinks that regulating the internet in any way what so ever is a good idea, and as a poker player, I can NOT support someone who doesn't support overturning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

So, I guess now it's on to Bob Barr. Let's see what I can uncover that makes me not be able to support him either. :(

http://www.secularhumanis...

Baldwin isn't "exactly" like

Baldwin isn't "exactly" like Ron Paul. Even though Ron Paul is a Christian, he doesn't defend his political positions on Christian grounds like Baldwin. This explains why Baldwin is against gambling and supports the war on drugs. Ron Paul had a YouTube video of him giving a House speech where he speaks against the online gambling prohibition. He pretty much said that although he personally believes gambling is stupid, he doesn't believe it is his right to tell others what they can and can't do with their own money.

Ron Paul is obviously against the War on Drugs, even though he personally doesn't do drugs.

On abortion, Ron Paul is personally pro-life, but he believes it is a state issue and not a federal issue. Baldwin believes that it is a federal issue.

People might see these differences as minor. But I see this is a huge slippery slope. Ron Paul believes in freedom in general as long as the freedom of others isn't violated. Baldwin believes in freedom as long as it doesn't conflict with Christian morality.

The online gaming issue

might very well give us a clue as to why Sue (Suzanne) Lowden, a casino magnate along with her husband, Paul here in Nevada, are so anti-Ron Paul. I know their orders domino down from the RNC in DC, but I'm sure Ron Paul's stance on online gambling doesn't endear him to her. I was told when I first moved here that the gaming industry is largely in control of politics, and most everything else, too.

IT'S DOABLE

The heart of the online

The heart of the online gambling issue isn't morality. Its brick-n-mortar casinos in the US not wanting to compete with online gambling companies headquartered overseas. This is for a few reasons:

1. Offshore companies have little or no taxes and less business regulations than US companies.
2. Online casinos have way lower operating costs.
3. Federal, state, and local governments are dependant on US brick-n-mortar casinos for tax revenue.

US Casinos can't compete with onlne businesses, especially ones that are offshore. This is the heart of the matter! It has nothing to do with morality.

Chuck Baldwin

"Chuck Baldwin opens his mouth and Ron Paul falls out"

thank God for that!

Lol

Lol

I do

detect a difference between Baldwin/CP and Dr. Paul. The CP is known to favor "fair trade", with which they mean more protectionism. This is one issue where the CP is closer to the Democratic Party, and get some support from them. The LP and Dr. Paul favor "free trade", e.g. no protectionist barriers and this is closer to the GOP position.

I see Baldwin uses the term 'free and fair trade", e.g. a "combination of the two. Once does detect a "China-bashing" which is IMHO not warranted. WIth all respect, Baldwin's "Red China" description is archaic, he does not factor in the developments over the past two decades. There is much more religious freedom in China than before and there are many millions of Christians. Also: The Chinese are the ultimate capitalists through the centuries with their trade and hard working spirit and dedication.

Needless to say I am with Dr. Paul, also with regard to this issue.

That's what I suspected

Baldwin appears to be a mercantilist instead of a free market capitalist. He says he wants to stop cheap imports coming into the U.S. from China.

A lot of people misinterpret Dr. Paul when he says he is against NAFTA. But he opposes that simply because he thinks it's government interfering with free trade. Dr. Paul is for open borders when it comes to trade.

***************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).

I am sure Ron could talk him

I am sure Ron could talk him into changing his mind.

Great everything but Baldwin has no chance

He is a complete unkown, has not been on the media, will get no attention, and has no chance.

He will never get into the debates, its a wasted vote and wasted campaigning.

I wish it were different, but if you think it was hard with Ron Paul, multiple it by a million for Chuck Baldwin

I dunno

Frankly, he does not really excite me. But I think that in many ways he is more acceptable to the political pundits. No way can he get elected.

I would consider the best reason to vote for him as a means of identifying Libertarian votes that cause McCain to lose the election. It is a means of demonstrating to the Republican Party that they cannot just take their libertarian members for granted.

Pastor Baldwin

I like most of what I've read or heard about Baldwin. What concerns me about his candidacy is that he is a pastor and church founder. I can have great respect for religious leaders when they support non-aggression, but running for political office? Is it appropriate? Can he separate his religious beliefs and politics? Are other religions, including atheism acceptable/respectable to him as alternatives for Americans? I would have the same hesitancy if a priest, minister or rabbi were running. I am still in the research phase. I am not anti-Baldwin, Barr or religion.

http://www.chuckbaldwinli...

Baldwin makes me uncomfortable, esp. regarding the War on Drugs

Frankly, I think Baldwin has done a poor job of telling us where he stands on certain issues. From this statement above, I can see that he is very fiscally conservative when it comes to taxes, he's against the war in Iraq, he's pro-life, and he supports gun rights.

But he really hasn't said much about where he stands on civil liberties, like the war on drugs. I asked if anyone knew what Baldwin's position on the War on Drugs is, and someone told me that he's against it. But I have searched though Baldwin's own site, and through Google, to find a statement from Baldwin saying he's against the drug war... and it's nowhere to be found.

Second, if Baldwin is against the war on drugs, what does that mean? Barr is also against the war on drugs on the federal level, but thinks the states should keep drugs illegal. (I realize that Ron Paul also said that he would repeal the federal war on drugs and leave it up to the states, but RP also has said that he thinks the states would be wise to regulate drugs like alcohol.) What does Baldwin think about any of this?

I am NOT a troll for Bob Barr. If you look at my previous posts, I have been very critical of Barr. But I will give Barr credit for coming from all the war to being the worst drug warrior in congress to saying that he wants to end the federal war on drugs, and that's a position that no one in Congress, expect Ron Paul, is willing to take. Also, when Barr speaks against the war on drugs, he has a lot of authority because of the fact that he was just 5 years ago the worst drug warrior in congress. When someone like Barr turns around and says the WoD is a failure, people will notice, and he might be able to convert others who were once drug war hawks. I think Barr would be wise to make his opposition to the federal war on drugs either the 1st or 2nd issue his campaign emphasizes. This will help him gain respect from libertarians and Ron Paul republicans who are skeptical of him on this issue, and it will help get the message out into the MSM... Barr has said he does not expect to be elected president, and so his campaign should be more about spreading Libertarian ideas.

Great point about Barr

The fact that a respected Republican went from being for the War on Drugs to against it, will help sway Republicans to favor ending the drug war.

And yes we have to keep in mind that this is not about electing a president. Dr. Paul did not expect to be president. This is just about getting in the debates and in the news, to influence the debate in this country.

***************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like yo did to Dr. Paul).

I don't think Baldwin has a

I don't think Baldwin has a position on the drug issue, other than that he thinks--like Pat Buchanan--that the solution is to close the US-Mexico border. He also has denounced the police state aspects of the War on Drugs and their erosion of posse comitatus and civil liberties.

I think the Constitution Party platform itself needs some rewriting. But I do not think it needs much. Baldwin's positions on most issues are in sync with Ron Paul's, which is why he publicly endorsed Ron Paul prior to becoming a presidential candidate.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Yeah, but Barr also endorsed Ron Paul...

To be fair to Barr, Barr not only endorsed Ron Paul prior to becoming a candidate, but Barr, who's on the board of directors of the LP, voted to make the unprecedented move for the LP to ask Ron Paul, a Republican, to be the LP candidate. Barr didn't enter the race until Paul made it clear he would not run for the LP nomination.

Also, on the situation room last night, RP praised both Baldwin and Barr equally and said it's "hard to pick one over the other," and he "hopes both will do well," but refused to endorse either. So I think RP, like many of us, has not yet made up his mind about who to vote for.

Baldwin probably does have a position on the WoD, he just wants to avoid saying it to keep everyone happy. It seems he's for it if the only thing he proposes is more border security. And Baldwin is wrong when he says border security will stop drugs from coming into the country, and he is wrong when he says most drugs come to the US accross the Mexican border, when the USA is the largest producer of pot, and pot accounts for the majority of all drug use...

..Barr..when he directed

..Barr..when he directed that write-inronpaul site to his, it kinda threw me..but I am no libertarian, anyway. To me, the presidential election has now become irrelevant. WHoever is on my ballot if no Ron Paul and besides Obama and McCain, I will vote for him. My first choice is Baldwin I doubt either Barr or Baldwin OR RP will be on my ballot, but I know write-ins do nothing, so I will do nothing if that is the way it is. We need to fight for Freedom. It makes no matter who becomes president, if not RP. We have work to do.

IF you're not a libertarian

then what were you doing supporting Dr. Paul?

************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).

Well, in this it seems

Well, in this it seems Baldwin and Barr are the same. Chuck Baldwin and other CP leaders, including Howard Phillips, tried to get Ron Paul to run on the CP ballot. Only when he said he wouldn't run 3rd party or independent, did Baldwin step up for nomination - and only because he didn't want Alan Keyes to get the nomination.

I'm down with Chuck Baldwin

Bottom line, I am a Ron Paul supporter, a member of the LP, an enemy of the Socialists - and this man has my support.

Though, I'm not certain I'm going to pass on writing in Ron Paul yet, and vote for Chuck.

-dave

"She's lower than the lowest whore outside the Holland Tunnel at 3am in fishnet stockings." - Michael Savage in reference to Dianne Sawyer

What's Baldwin's position on the War on Drugs?

???

********************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).

baldwins position on drugs

baldwin makes barr's NEW position on drugs look like that of a former CIA agent, oh wait.....

Time to rethink America's drug war
Posted: October 02, 2000
Dr. Chuck Baldwin

America is fighting its war on drugs the way it fought the Vietnam War: as a deliberate no-win war. Not only are we not winning the war on drugs, we are surrendering our constitutional liberties in the process.

Like any war, the only way to win is to want to win. Our government has no intention of winning the war on drugs. The reason? Too much of our economy and too many "big shots" are profiting from the trafficking of illegal drugs.

I've talked with several Vietnam veterans that have said they personally saw our government dealing drugs in Southeast Asia. Men like L.D. Brown have testified to having personally observed our government run drugs out of places like Mena, Ark. Powerful, influential businessmen all over America are enjoying the financial and political fruits of this corrupt industry. In fact, there is significant evidence to support the proposition that one of the chief reasons America's military was used to bomb Yugoslavia into the Stone Age was to provide open corridors for Albanian drug lords to transport their illegal wares into Europe.

http://www.worldnetdaily....
----------------------------------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and over run by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what were putting up with” Ron Paul

This is EXACTLY why I'm uncomfortable with Baldwin & the WoD

If you read the rest of his article, (which I have pasted below,) Baldwin never says he wants to end the WoD, in fact he says "There is only one solution, and it's not that difficult to figure out. We must close that border with Mexico because that is where most illegal drugs are coming from."

When he says it's time to "rethink" the WoD, that means he just wants to change the strategy. And I'm sorry, but all the border security in the world won't stop illegal drug use... Also, Baldwin is wrong when he says a majority of illegal drugs come across the Mexican border. In fact, 60% of all illegal drug use is pot, and the USA is the world's largest producer of pot. A lot of speed is also made domestically.
--------------------------------------
Here's the rest of Baldwin's article:
"Furthermore, in the name of fighting drugs, America is sacrificing its constitutional liberties at a pace never seen before. Since President Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive in 1986, the Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (which prevents the use of U.S. military forces against American citizens) have been practically eviscerated.

You will recall that our government manufactured a non-existent methamphetamine plant in the Branch Davidian communal home that served as the facade for U.S. military forces (including tanks) being used in the assault that killed nearly 80 American citizens, most of whom were old men, women and children. Using the magic "war on drugs," government agents have kicked down the doors of untold numbers of innocent, unsuspecting Americans leaving hundreds of honest, law-abiding folks traumatized, or dead.

Pat Buchanan and Howard Phillips know what needs to be done, but few people are paying attention to them. There is only one solution, and it's not that difficult to figure out. We must close that border with Mexico because that is where most illegal drugs are coming from.

However, neither Bush nor Gore wants to close our Southern border. In the name of "free trade" and "immigration" they desire to keep a wide-open, unrestricted border. So, drugs keep streaming across that border at a rate impossible for American law enforcement to restrain. Corrupt politicians and businessmen continue to bask in the luxury of drug-inspired wealth and prosperity. American citizens continue to see their constitutional liberties obliterated. And, the war on drugs drags on."

i hear u

send baldwin a email! i would like to see his reply to your questions.

if your looking for a perfect candidate like ron paul i think you'll be looking for a while.

rand paul?

----------------------------------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and over run by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what were putting up with” Ron Paul

It all comes down to abortion

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.

I realize that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are very pro-life. I respect your views and understand them. As for me, I am now pro-life due to the INFLUENCE of hearing Ron Paul speak on the subject. I do support abortion rights in the cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mothers survival. I assume many here would say "no way not in any case!" It is an extremely touchy subject and must be handled with care. If Dr. Paul had come out from day one in his campaign and beat people over the head with his pro-life stance, I guarantee you that the R3VOLUTION would have lost ten to twenty percent of its support. My point is that the Freedom Movement can never win by attacking or forcing beliefs on the rest of the population that we desperately need to win elections. Otherwise this country needs to split in two and we can all throw stones at each other over the newly built border wall. If Baldwin would be able to slow down his effort in converting Americans to the pro-life position, he would fare much better in both conversion rate and political success. Remember many pro-choice activists have been brainwashed into believing it's some great necessary right to protect. The more you scream and yell and argue with them, the more you lose them. That goes for all the messages that the Freedom Movement bring to the masses. We will win more support for our ideas if we gently approach sensitive subjects and simply let our influence rub off on fellow American citizens over time. Baldwin would have my vote if he removed the abortion plank in his platform and replaced it with states rights. Otherwise, it will be a wasted effort trying to CHANGE all of the pro-choicers in one election cycle.

Baldwin and Pro-Life

Chuck Baldwin's position on abortion is the same as that of Ron Paul.

I will demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a ‘person’ under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law. (emphasis added)

The process of law is where state laws come into play in how exactly the life of the unborn would be protected -- such as in those cases you mentioned above.

That is probably.....

the reason why the good Dr. failed to capture a broader base of support. Instead of the government getting involved in abortion, why can't pro- lifers try and influence LOCAL women to have their babies. Have any of you here, ever started a charity or donated money to one that would help pay for all of the birthing costs, and expenses of raising a child? Don't divide, INFLUENCE peacefully, just like RP's foreign policy!

Yes I Have

I have donated and worked with local organization that do just what you suggest. I also think that additional support should be given to these institutions.

However, this is a realm where the government certainly does have jurisdiction because it is protecting the liberties of the unborn -- just as the government should protect all of the civil liberties of its citizens.

As an aside, there have also been efforts to make legislation that would require all abortionists to show the mothers an ultrasound picture of the baby prior to abortion. The pro-choice movement has fought vigorously against this legislation because an overwhelming majority of women having seen that picture choose to not perform an abortion. All this picture does is show them what the actual choice is -- it is informational. Apparently the pro-choice just want pregnant women to make uninformed decisions. That doesn't sound "pro-choice" to me.

So, there have been efforts to influence local women, but they have been consistently opposed by pro-abortion groups who care more about the money they make from abortions or population control then they care about the condition -- physical and emotional -- of the mothers.

Meanwhile

Back to the DailyPAUL. Enough is enough. I didn't read all of this, if and when I need to know this candidate's opinion I'll check it out on the DailyBaldwin, or whatever is appropriate. besides we know all about this guy and the other guy, but we have a job to do yet for our guy, Ron Paul. Quoting Ron Paul: "Now, does this purely regulatory change mean that our goals at the National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota in September have changed? Not at all! We must take back the Republican Party. We need to take back America for our ideals. Our delegates and our alternates will still attend the convention?." In the recording he goes on to say more yes. Does that sound like he wants us to quit or up on revitalizing the Republican Party by going Independent, Constitution, or Libertarian Party...NO.

IT'S DOABLE

Sounds like a good man

but some things I think are important that I did not see mentioned. Repealing the Patriot Act, the Real ID and other unholy, unconstitutional act that infringes on our rights. Having any one that is an elected official or in our law enforcement, or courts sign a statement to abide by the oath they took to follow the Constitution or they will be released from duty. Start an independant investigation into 9/11. Does he speak about these things elsewhere? What does he want to enforce with religion that people keep bringing up?

Here's Chuck on the National

Here's Chuck on the National ID Card, Federal Reserve, and Income Taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Good stance

he needs to include the National ID part in his above article now that he has been nominated because it is really important.

Here's Chuck from a month

Here's Chuck from a month ago discussing the Patriot Act:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

On track

but he does not talk about doing completely away with the Patriot Act alltogether. It needs to go as it is totally unconstitutional. Also such an important issue to so many people should be listed in the article above on what he would implement if elected.

Amazing...

I don't see how anyone could look at this platform in comparison to Dr. Paul's and still think that we should vote for anyone else now that Ron is out of the hunt.

Max

"A good End cannot sanctify evil Means; nor must we ever do Evil, that Good may come of it." -William Penn

Barr

It would appear that on a couple issues, Barr may actually be closer to Paul than Baldwin. For example, it appears that his position is more "libertarian" on gambling whereas Baldwin opposes gambling. However, I am not sure what Baldwin's position would be on that issue from a political point of view -- ie. should we create federal laws against gambling. It is one thing to oppose something personally and another to actually create laws against such acts. For example, Ron Paul has stated that he doesn't agree with prostitution, but he doesn't believe that the federal government should ban it.

Barr voted for the un-Patriot Act

...anyone that voted for that piece of trash should never be allowed to hold office again, ever.

I lean toward Baldwin

I find myself more aligned with Baldwin than Barr as I too oppose gambling, prostitution, and profanity -- though I do not think the federal government has any place to interfere with these issues. I was merely pointing out the other side out of fairness.

The Patriot Act vote does concern me, even given his excuse for the vote. Expediency can often lead to trouble, and there is something to say about standing up for your convictions.

He voted for it after it had already passed

in order to get into the committee to put the sunset provisions. He deserves a medal for this.

****************
Bob Barr Money Bombs July 2: www.BarrBomb.com and July 4 www.BobBarrMoneyBomb.com Help continue propagating the Revolutionary message of liberty. (9/11 "Truthers": Please don't support Barr. You'll hurt his public image and cost him support and votes, like you did to Dr. Paul).