A vote for Pastor Baldwin elects a Democrat. He has absolutely no chance of winning. To me, that doesn't make sense. At least we know with McCain that he'll continue the fight against terrorism, he's pro-life, and he'll protect our right to legally own firearms. With elected Democrats, we have no such guarantees on any of those counts. They'll be too busy chiding us for not understanding homicidal jihadists who ram planes full of jet fuel and innocent civilians into skyscrapers rather than killing them before they get the chance.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

A vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Chuck Baldwin. I myself am not held captive by the two party dictatorship. I don't get all excited when I hear Republicans say they are pro life. I don't want to know that you are pro life, I want to know that you intend to do whatever it takes to overturn Roe V. Wade. Republicans controlled the whole show for six years and no effort was made to overturn Roe v. Wade. Oh, wait. There was one guy who submitted a bill that declared that life begins at conception which would have given the baby legal protection under the Constitution, effectively nullifying Roe. His name was Ron Paul, and the bill was called the Sanctity of life act. I believe its posted somewhere in this thread. Out of all the pro life Republicans I think he found 4 to co-sponsor it.

I don't believe Republicans are pro-life because they give me no reason to believe them. Its just an issue they use to get elected. They have no intention of doing anything about it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin364.htm

We need to elect someone who will be a voice for the 50 million children who have been murdered in the womb, and I don't see him in either of the two big box parties.

Your right brother, I don't think we will agree on this one.

Peace.

Ray

That's exactly right brother!

Alan Keyes has now been invited to run for the Constitution party platform. I have mixed feelings about this though.

1) He is a Roman Catholic (censure in and of itself)
2) He is a staunch conservative, and secularly agrees with just about everything I do.

Number 1 puts me in an awkward position. What do I do? If the Constition party is willing to allow a catholic to represent them, then what?

Well, I don't believe that he will get the nomination. He is out of sorts with the platform on foreign policy. I was on a conference call with Alan Keyes and other CP members the other day and he was being grilled pretty hard about the subject.

I myself like Pastor Baldwin. I think he has great insight on the Constitution and believe him to be a godly man.

I will say this for Alan Keyes. He was at a meeting with CP leadership along with Dobsons crew and also Falwells former organization as well with judge Roy Moore. Well the CP leadership thought that all present were there to talk about endorsing the CP candidate for President, when in all actuality it turned out to be a meeting where the aforementioned people were justifying voting for John McCain. Apparently Alan Keyes stood up and scolded them all for being a bunch of phony conservatives and left the meeting.

I'll give him points for that.

Any way Keyes will have to go through the process at the convention, and I don't think he'll win.

In any case I believe that our local state and town elections are more important right now. That is where the CP will build a base.

We need to fix our States before we can fix America. Besides one man, even as President can't do it all anyway.

Ray

Bro Ray,
Got this from Freedom's Phoenix.com:

On Apr. 10, Charles O. "Chuck" Baldwin, Vice-Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party in 2004, made a last-minute entry into the race for the CP's 2008 Presidential nomination. The CP picks its candidate tomorrow at its convention in Kansas City.

Baldwin is not only a late entry into the race, but seemingly a reluctant one. As late as Mar. 25, he had made no decision to run, telling Miller Politics then that "I have no inclination that this is God's will for me." However, on Apr. 10, still with no word from God, he "allowed my name to be placed in nominatioin, trusting that God will reveal His will accordingly."

There is speculation that Baldwin allowed himself to be drafted to stop the candidacy of Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who recently switched from the Republican Party to the CP to seek its nomination. Some CP members are reportedly alarmed by the prospect of a Keyes candidacy, as many of his positions are inconsistent with party policy -- in particular, his support of the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

Baldwin, on the other hand, holds foreign policy views similar to Ron Paul. He is a long-time supporter of Paul, and tried to draft Paul for the CP nomination in 2004 before going onto the ticket himself. This time around he has championed Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination, writing favourably about him many times in his weekly column.

Like Keyes (and like most of the CP membership), Baldwin is a deeply religious man. In fact he is not only an evangelical but also a pastor, of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL. However, he has been a strong critic of other evangelicals, for their support of both President George W. Bush and Bush's newly-designated successor, Sen. John McCain:

For one thing, a sizeable number of believers allowed President George W. Bush to redefine their Christian principles almost out of existence. They willingly looked the other way while Bush betrayed his word (not to mention the Constitution) and catapulted conservative principles into outer darkness. To the point, that they can now even support someone as liberal as John McCain and still call him a "conservative."

I will say it straight out: any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!

Can anyone remember when George W. Bush ran for the White House in 2000, promising the American people that he would pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy? So much for that promise.

George W. Bush has orchestrated the most meddlesome, interventionist, and nation-building foreign policy of any President in modern memory. And Christians became his most vocal supporters. Now, John McCain gets in front of international television and jokes about bombing Iran, and once again, Christians stand up and cheer.

Christians have swallowed the Bush/McCain Kool-Aid as surely as did the followers of Jim Jones. They are drunk with denial and deception.

Similarly, Baldwin has excoriated evangelicals for largely ignoring Ron Paul's candidacy:

Maybe today's evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.

Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk....

Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to "pick a winner." Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don't expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.

While Baldwin has done little or no campaigning, he is expected to do well, and may even be able to stop Keyes. He enjoys strong support from many CP activists, such as Kevin Thompson (who blogged back in 2007: "is there a better presidential candidate than Ron Paul? Yes. That man is Chuck Baldwin.")

Personally, I admire Baldwin and would like to see him win. But it is an open question whether that would help or harm the rEVOLution. On the one hand, a Baldwin candidacy may be able to break through to the evangelical community which ignored Ron Paul, taking crucial southern and midwest votes away from John McCain and his sycophant (and likely running mate), Mike Huckabee. On the other hand, it may do no more than divide and fragment the rEVOLutionary vote among himself, Libertarian Bob Barr, and possibly Ron Paul as well.

In any case, that's not for me to decide. Whoever's decision it is -- God's, as Baldwin believes, or solely that of the CP delegates already assembled in Kansas City -- we'll know it by tomorrow.

Here's the latest:

Convening its national convention in Kansas City today, the Constitution Party picked radio talk-show host Chuck Baldwin over former Ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential candidate.

The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes' higher national profile. Known for his fiery stem-winders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Constitution Party, which believes in limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing American troops home from Iraq.

But Baldwin's roots in the Constitution Party run deeper. He was the party's 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.

"Chuck is the real deal," said Jim Clymer, the party's national chairman.

Still, the two waged a fierce battle described as the most contentious in the party's 16-year history. Baldwin wound up winning easily on a 384-126 vote. The Missouri and Kansas delegations basically split their votes between the two.

"They just rejected the most qualified man to be president," said Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa, Keyes' national political director. "Chuck Baldwin will have no impact on this election whatsoever."

The party's immediate tasks, Clymer said, are raising money and gaining ballot access in each state. The party now has qualified to be on the ballots of 21 states. He expects the eventual total to top 40 and include Kansas and Missouri.

"We're always short on money," Clymer said.

In his acceptance speech, Baldwin said his presidency would result in the ending of illegal immigration, abortion, the streamlining of the federal government, the tapping of oil reserves in Alaska and withdrawal from Iraq.

"We will stop the international meddling...this international empire-building," Baldwin said.

When he takes office, Baldwin said, "The new world order comes crashing down!"

He pledged not only to pull out of the United Nations, but to push the international organization out of New York.

"The U.N. is going to have to find themselves another (home) because their rent is up in New York City," he said.

He said he would phase out the Internal Revenue Service and end the paying of personal income taxes. He said the country should return to the gold standard.

Home schoolers, he said, would have the best friend they ever had in the White House.

I have been a little distracted from politics here recently (I can only take so much). What happened to Ron Paul? Can we still write him in?

How much influence will any third party candidate have over policy when he and McCain lose to the socialist party of America (Democrats)? That's right ... none. Voting for Baldwin effectively gives the Democrats the Presidency and they already have control of Congress. Might as well just connect the dots on the Democratic ticket instead of pretending like a 3rd party candidate could win.

But if we are forced to vote for McCain (the lesser of 2 evils) just to keep a Dem out, then that restricts freedom. I don't vote so a certain party will lose. I vote for the person that I believe has the right standards to be a President. I am going to vote for the person who I believe is the right MAN for the job. I may not like the results, but voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for an evil. Conservatism is conservatism and McCain aint a real conservative.

Everyone needs to make sure that Chuck Baldwin is on the ballot in their state. It requires 100K signatures I think? Is that right Ray? He didn't make it here.

This is one of those times that I go against my stance on voting. If all i have is the three stooges to pick from, my vote will either be a write-in, or a no-vote.

James and others:

Voting for conscience sake is a valid option, only if you also accept first that your candidate will not be elected, and second that the one who is elected was ordained of God to be put into that position. Whoever that person is, we must pray that God would be gracious to him/her and to our nation.

Voting for one candidate (McCain) who is viable should not necessarily be seen as supporting him. It is also a vote against whoever the democrats select. I will be voting against Clinton/Obama, not in support of McCain. If I did not know myself better, I would take offense at your declaration, James. I am at peace before God with my decision.

The biggest problem that I have with a preacher going into politics is that he already has a call upon his life that should not be diluted with the pressure to compromise that comes with politics. This was my thoughts about Huckabee, and the pastor that I work with who is running for state office, and now Chuck Baldwin. In Chuck's case, He has said that he does not have God's leading to do this. If he is without specific guidance, why is he moving forward? Is God being silent for a reason? Duh!

The required amount of signatures is different in each state. Here in Missouri it was 10,000 and we turned in 15,000. In Connecticut where I used to live it was 7500. In Texas the two party dictatorship has seen to it that it is very hard to get on the ballot. You have to get 47,000 signatures from registered voters who did not vote in the either of the two big box party primaries on Mar 4th, And they have to be turned in on May 27th.
http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local...43951.html

The Dems and Repubs have seen to it that the people of Texas have no choice but to vote for either one of them. Funny, there are no signature requirements found in the U.S. Constitution.

Just for your info Jim, the South Carolina Delegation cast all 15 votes for Chuck Baldwin. We weren't so fortunate here in MO. Some of the delegates were attracted to the "name" just as I had feared. In the end our delegation went 6 for Keyes and 5 for Baldwin. Me and my wife were part of that 5.

The way I see it if either the Dems or McCain get in, Teddy Kennedy can't lose. McCain and Kennedy worked on the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill together and you can be sure that you will see it again after this next election. McCain is essentially a Democrat.

Christians need to quit being afraid of the boogey man and just vote for the most principled candidate. In this case I honestly believe that it is Chuck Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin is only a man and is by no means perfect I'm sure, but he stands firmly on a platform that I can , do and will support with my vote.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

In Christ
Ray

That is amazing, I was not aware of that. But so I don't have to look it up, did we get enough sigs for the ballot? I was with the understanding that we did not.....

Love in Christ,

Jim

According to wiki, keep in mind that doesn't mean it true. But they say SC has ballot access already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_acce...l_election

We turned our signatures in here in MO about two weeks ago. We are still waiting for confirmation of ballot access as we speak.

Ray

Bro Tim,
I'm sorry if my declaration was viewed as offensive, but in the spirit of Martin Luther, I can't go against my conscience. Several years ago, I was right where you are (politically) in voting for the lesser of two evils. But, like I said previously, that is still evil. My Dad was the Republican Party chairman in Union, SC for over 10 years. I registered and voted Republican, until Reagan's 2nd term, when I switched to the Libertarians (I liked Ron Paul, even then), because I saw the Republicans abandoning everything they "stood" for. The thing I liked about the Libertarians, was their focus against the fed. I then saw some things in the Libertarian platform that I didn't like, so I registered as an Independent. The federal government is involved in things they have absolutely NO business being in. For the last 100 years, our federal government has thrown the Constitution out the window, and done what they wanted, regardless of the law. Our country is not supposed to be governed by "public opinion" or Newsweek's "prevailing thought." The States, and the people (Amendments 9 & 10, Bill of Rights) are supposed to be running the country, not a federal oligarchy, as in Washington, that our founders were so against. That's why the original States fought so hard against a federal monster. However, over the last 100 years, regardless of who (Dem or Repub) is sitting in the White House, the "machine" continues to move America towards a global village.
I'm glad you agreed that voting my conscience was the right thing to do. I cannot find anywhere in scripture that intimates our nation (founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ) is supposed to turn her government over to a bunch of godless pagans. Juan McLame, Hellery, and the muslim, all fit that category. As I recall, you were leaning toward voting for Alan Keyes, and you see which party he joined. Bros Jim & Raymond, introduced me to the platform of the Constitution Party, and on our return to the States for furlough in June, will re-register as a Constitutionalist. I am thrilled with their scriptural stand for The Lord Jesus Christ, as the bedrock of their party.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 07:10 AM by Mongol Servant.