Posted on 07/14/2008 9:48:03 AM PDT by mnehrling
p>Well, you can add another candidate I won’t be voting for in November to my list; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party who has all but pulled a John Kerry and insulted our troops by inferring that they are part what he calls the “lunacy” of the Iraq War. By correlation, if the mission is “lunacy” than those that are willingly supporting it and singing up for the job must be “lunatics”. Baldwin decried “the bi-partisan complicity that has allowed the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”. Baldwin went on to point out “If elected, I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad to guard the borders of Iraq, while leaving our borders wide open, inviting illegals to plunder the wealth and good will of American citizens”. Baldwin’s remarks were interrupted by a number of thunderous standing ovations making it clear his message resonated with the party faithful.
Of course I assumed that the Constitution Party would appoint a candidate with such a position and quite frankly it is actions like this that keep people from voting for their candidates. Instead of being unhinged and adopting liberal talking points, the Constitution Party should step back, take a deep breath, reread the Constitution and come back down to Earth.
To call the Iraq War “unconstitutional” places Baldwin in the same camp as Ron Paul in terms of being “loony” himself since the Constitution clearly states that Congress declares war and there is a resolution on record, for anyone that cares to read it, authorizing the use of force (i.e. war) against Iraq for their (at the time) continued violations of the ceasefire agreement and associations with terrorist organizations.
Baldwin’s “lunacy” puts him squarely in the camp of not being qualified to be Commander in Chief of our military and thus not qualified to be President. Thus the Constitution Party, for all its good ideas, regulates itself to being nothing more than another hopeless also-ran.
Note, I fixed the grammar problem with the original title.
Just goes to show that, as usual, the only things worse than the two major parties are the third parties.
BS
Kind of makes me miss old Ross Perot.. as nutty as he was, at least he loved his country and those who defended it.
It is an amalgam of all the anti-Constitutional crank movements from the original Anti-Federalists to the America Firsters and beyond.
"Untold innocent Iraqis" - clowns.
Not quite as bad as the left. At least he proposed defending our borders from illegals. The left would never propose such a thing.
>> “... the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”.
Makes John McCain sound like Ronald Reagan.
H
You have no argument.
One of two individuals will be the next president of our United States: Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. or Senator John Sidney McCain III. Pick one.
I guess that leaves the Falcon Party as the only conservative option: “Twenty members...and growing!”
When was the last time we had a Senator become President? It’s been more than 40 years, I think.
You mean the ‘Falcon Blog’? They aren’t registered as a party, it is just a blog.
Two members for every claw.
>>> By correlation, if the mission is “lunacy” than those that are willingly supporting it and singing up for the job must be “lunatics”.
>> BS
I think I agree with you on this assessment. I don’t think it necessarily follows from calling the mission “lunacy” that the soldiers would be “lunatics”. However, I think there are bigger problems ...
>> Baldwin decried “the bi-partisan complicity that has allowed the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”.
Even beyond the unsupportable declaration that the Iraq War is “illegal, immoral, unconstitutional” (which shows an abject misunderstanding of the Constitution, on which he supposedly bases his ideology) — the declaration that American soldiers have killed “untold innocent” Iraqi civilians is unquestionably a libel of noble servicemen.
The war is neither illegal, nor unconstitutional (its morality, I suppose, is debatable ... though I’ll not vote for an individual to whom the morality of this war is a debatable point). And, American soliders have not “slaughtered” innocent Iraqis.
With such nonsense as this and Bob Barr’s nonsensical railing against the Patriot Act, from supposedly conservative third-party candidates ... I see no third party which offers an alternative preferable to John McCain.
H
You only lose if you choose to lose. You still live in the United States of America, the greatest country on earth. We've survived Revolution, Civil War, World Wars, Depressions, Recessions, Wilsons, Carters, Clintons, and we always come out stronger. Yea our choices stink this year, but our lives aren't run in DC, they are run in our own homes. We need to get over this attitude that our lives are run from DC. We don't need someone prancing in proclaiming 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help', even if it is about an issue we care for. We need to live our lives as Conservative individuals and spread those values. That way, no matter who is in DC, the country will become greater.
The only threat we have is if we, ourselves, give up.
Not that I agree with the Constitution Party, but your conclusion doesn’t match logically with what the man actually said.
He said, “If elected, I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad ...” Thus, “lunacy” refers to the policy (and by extension, the politicians), not even to the war. Therefore, it cannot be extended to the soldiers.
This is my main problem with the Constitution Party. On most other things, I agree with them. But ideas like this and the savage way that Howard Phillips (wom I respected and used to work for) went after Alan Keyes are real problems.
Must be the Soviet Constitution.
Wasn’t my conclusion, that was the author of the article.
However, what would you consider someone who freely chooses to follow and support something that is considered lunacy?
He has made even clearer accusations in calling our soldiers criminals by stating they are committing criminal acts against ‘innocents’ in a criminal war.
That's the truth. I can understand someone not wanting to vote for McCain out of principle, but the two loons who present themselves as conservative alternatives (Baldwin and Barr) have disqualified themselves.
And fornication and adultery have rightly carried civil penalties.
The reasoning behind these legal aspects of the US system varies greatly from the UAE's, however.
But you bring up an important point: a lot of the Constitution Party people seem to operate on the assumption that once they succeed in robbing the federal government of all or most of its Constitutional powers, they will be able to create all-powerful state governments that will enact their every whim as an iron law without the nuisance of federal review.
One will this year: The last was President John F. Kennedy in 1960.
I do not agree with Chuck Baldwin's statements, but...
The author of this piece is looney if he doesn't understand that the impetus for military action is provided by the civilian leadership of the U.S. government. By misconstruing this argument, the author dilutes the true jibes at America's service members - such as the "stuck in Iraq" comments from one John Kerry.
HELL, NO! Conservatives truly lose badly with either one.
Not all of them. Check out America's Independent Party. I think you'll find a lot of agreement.
Phillips used to praise Keyes publicly. I guess those days are gone.
We only lose if we choose to lose, or, if we start taking the left’s attitude that our lives revolve around who wins elections.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
If not America first, then what?
Until Alan decided to run for the CP nomination against his favored candidate. Now he's a "neocon," according to Howard.
But Keyes is still runningand needs the support of real conservatives. He is the one real conservative in this race.
“Why is it that those who claim to be Constitutionalists know so little about the Constitution” unattributed FReeper tagline (check my tagline)
Bologna.
Barr’s baggage, which seems to basically boil down to working with the ACLU on privacy rights issues, is a lot less than Juan McCain’s.
If I could single-handily pick the president, and it was between McCain and Barr, I’d pick Barr.
Last time I checked, they aligned themselves with the Constitpation Party..
Like the Constitution Party, the America Firsters were an organization whose label did not accurately describe the contents.
America First, had it been accurately named, would have been called Hitler First.
Feel free to use my tagline anytime you like.
Beat me by a few seconds. :->
You’r thinking of the American Independent Party of California, the remnant of George Wallace’s old party. A different entity.
They had been a Constitution Party affiliate, but State Chairman Ed Noonan held a State Committe meeting and they left the Constitution Party for the new America’s Independent Party, which has Dr. Keyes as its nominee.
Check http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip
>> Unconstitutional? What Constitution are these jokers reading? It was authorized by Congress, paid for by Congress and run by the Executive. Exactly as called for by the Constitution.
The line of attack usually taken is that there was no “Declaration of War”. However, nowhere in the Constitution is it required that a “Declaration of War” use those words precisely in its title.
In 2002, Congress passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”. A Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is effectively identical to a Congressional Declaration of War.
In short, the Constitution does not ban the use of synonyms in the title of a “Declaration of War”. You’d think a Presidential Candidate of the Constitution Party would have at least a remedial understanding of American Constitutional Law.
H
It doesn't limit what type of ‘punishment’ is used, nor does it limit what laws we use, it basically gives Congress permission to use the legal tools necessary.
Our not liking the two choices does not change the truth of his statement.
Both are bad choices, but one is still much worse of a choice than the other, and the results will effect you regardless of if you decide to participate of not.
If conservatives decide not to vote or vote for someone that has no chance of winning, then the choice will be made by liberals. Are you satisfied with liberals choosing our next president?
The third parties have always been some incestuous political family. Ever election they claim they are made up of disaffected voters of the major parties, but in reality, 99% of the time, they are the same old faces of other third parties.
They are repeatedly asked to do so.
They have three standard responses:
(1) They take the attitude that anything disliked by a constitutional scholar as great as themselves is obviously unconstitutional and that even asking the question proves that the questioner is stupid.
(2) Anyone daring to ask them such a question is clearly a neo-con, probably a Zionist and is likely Jewish to boot. Therefore, the questioner is not worth answering.
(3) Constitutional law is not actually a rational discipline pursued analytically, but is simply one big game of semantics, and if a magical sequence of words framed ahead of time by them cannot be discovered verbatim in the Constitution, then it is not constitutional. For example Congress is not allowed, by the rules of the game, to declare war unless the document specifically says "We declare war."
No synonyms allowed and the words "authorize the use of force" cannot be literally found in the Constitution.
Both McCain and Obama truly are very socialistic in their politics, so it really doesn’t matter this time who the next POTUS is. Also, do you really believe McCain when he says that he will ONLY NOMINATE conservatives to all future judicial vacancies while McCain is POTUS? All conservatives are NOW supposed to actually TRUST McCain on everything dear to conservatives? BTW, what good is McCain’s promise to nominate only conservative judges to the Supreme Court when the next Congress, including the next U.S. Senate, will probably by more leftist? It’s the U.S. Senate who has to approve all of McCain’s judicial choices, and the next U.S. Senate will probably be more socialistic than the present U.S. Senate! Socialism will truly win no matter who the next POTUS is.
They begin with the party organizers and a bunch of mailing lists purchased or "borrowed" by the organizers.
They recruit gullible, ideologically committed volunteers to do all the heavy lifting (getting on the ballot, handing out literature, arranging speeches, manning the phone lines, etc.) while they solicit donations. The rubes respond, sending money to a party which they believe will finally "restore Christian constitutional government as of old."
The organizers pay themselves through fees remitted to consulting companies employed by the campaign. When true believers become discouraged or suspicious, they close up shop and move on to the next party.
And the rubes vote for the next hopeless scam - convinced that they are "investing" their vote instead of throwing it away.
History lesson: no third party has ever come to power in American history. A cursory review of the US Constitution reveals that we do not operate on the parliamentary system, making the growth and ascendancy of a third party structurally almost impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.