Monthly archives for September, 2008
Written by Bailout Blues – Bumming Billions
Written by I went on a tirade the other day. I told my coworker that just this once I was abandoning my libertarian principles of non initiation of force and doing no harm. There are men in this world, men who have all the money and all the power, who just keep taking and taking from the common folk. They just want more and more. They want it all. Total control. They want everything down to the soul of the lowliest human being in the most destitute situation. And they most likely believe it is their birthright to own and control such things. Most likely they believe they are somehow better than us. Now they have the gall to ask for our help in rescuing them from their own mismanagement and poor decision making, and our great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will likely still be paying for it when they are old and gray if we allow this rescue to take place. It was these men I ranted against.
I wanted to see justice done. I wanted to see these men publicly hung in the most painful manner and beaten to death, just to send a message. I wanted to see the men responsible for this banking mess, this “credit crisis,” this financial fiasco punished in the most severe way possible. And I wasn’t talking about the CEOs of the firms that are going under. I wasn’t talking about the huge banks that are bleeding green ink due to the so called mortgage crisis. I’m talking about the big boys in charge. I’m talking about the private individuals who own the Federal Reserve system and all the central bankers worldwide. I’m also talking about the politicians who help them swindle the general populace of not only the United States, but of the entire world with their fiat currencies. I’m talking about any politician who would now argue in favor of such a bailout, the continued failed policies of the past and the continued subjugation of the American people. It’s time for these men who pull the strings and manipulate the money supply to answer for their fraud, and it’s time for them to pay, and to pay dearly.
These rich men sitting high atop their perches looking down on us do not deserve their positions of power. They do no real work. The offer no real product or service the market needs. They simply connive and deceive the populations of the world for their own gain. The shell games they play to suck the money from your pocket and mine can no longer hold our attention. They have been robbing the US citizens of our real wealth for nearly a century now. It is time for them to give back the real wealth of our nation and we should happily return their “notes” to them. I think we can find something to replace such paper, something of real value, something like some precious metals or notes backed by precious metals that would represent the real labor of real men rather than the debt of a population.
And even if those men responsible were to suffer such harsh consequences, even if they were rounded up and thrown into a dungeon somewhere, that still would not be enough. Their fortunes were made on the backs of the working class, since the money they loan was created from nothing and backed by nothing of any real value and the interest they kept for their personal coffers was earned by real people providing real labor, goods and services. They should be the ones paying to keep their failed institutions afloat. Their personal wealth should be returned to those institutions they claim we need so badly. Their assets should be forfeit and they should be made to work to earn their keep in this world just like the rest of us poor slobs. Let’s see just how long these trillionaire bankers could last on the street. Let’s see how they’d last as a waiter, a taxi driver, a pizza deliverer, a garbage collector, or some other laborer. Let’s see if they could even learn a trade and become a tradesman. Let’s see how they’d do in business if they had any real competition. I have the feeling it wouldn’t be too well if they handled their personal finances they way they handle the financing of a nation. Perhaps they’d be able to make few dollars begging on the streets and at least give a couple of people the satisfaction of knowing they’ve helped a fellow human being that day.
All this ranting got me to thinking, what would really happen if we just let these institutions fail anyway? Surely these dire warnings these bankers spew forth are just scare tactics. Certainly people aren’t going to stop doing business just because some financial institutions fail. There will still be demand for food, clothes, travel, housing, etc. Any void left in the marketplace would soon be filled, and then we’ll all start moving forward again. Supply and demand simply need to come to a stable balance.
The bank I had my car loan with recently went under. I didn’t get to stop paying my car loan. The car didn’t magically become mine just because the bank no longer existed. Nobody came and took my car saying it was to be liquidated. Another bank bought the loan and started demanding payments from me. The same is true of mortgages. People who have been paying their mortgages for years will not suddenly own their homes outright just because their bank folds. Their loan will be picked up by another institution and they’ll keep paying like they’ve always done. Those who aren’t able to afford their mortgages will still not be able to afford their mortgages with a new institution and those loans will still likely go into default unless some private bank renegotiates the loan terms with them. I should not be forced to subsidize their mistake just because some financial institution is going to fail.
I’ve heard of a couple of interesting things happening during the recent attempts to bailout these financial institutions. The first is a Rasmussen poll that stated only seven percent of Americans polled supported the bailout. Now polls can vary widely and this has much to do with how questions are asked, and some polls contradict the one I just sited, but the people I’ve talked with overwhelmingly object to bailing out the rich bankers. And I do actually talk to real working class people everyday, unlike the elitists in Washington DC who hardly take the time to actually discuss these matters with us “little folk.” It wouldn’t surprise me if the seven percent number was correct. The other thing I heard that was interesting was that our congress critters were receiving letters three hundred to one objecting to the proposed bailout. It looks as if the common man perhaps knows something those supposed omnipotent politicians don’t.
One thing I’m certain of is that the politicians couldn’t care less about what you and I think. They don’t care about the common man. They are more concerned with their friends and supporters on Wall Street and in the banks. The people overwhelmingly object to bailouts and the politicians continue to discuss the best way to go about bailing out the banks. During the debates neither Barack Obama nor John McCain spoke about not bailing out the banks. Neither one of those two jamokes mentioned attacking the root cause of the current financial debacle and abolishing the Fed. They couldn’t care less about the Constitution, our freedoms, our businesses or our families, they only care about maintaining control and the status quo for those already in power. These are not the type of men we need in leadership positions. These are not the type of men who represent the common man, the hard working middle class people who are the backbone of this country. Still, it doesn’t matter what we think, there will be a bailout come Hell or high water.
I doubt very much I’m going to get my wish. I doubt very much I’ll see these millionaire congressmen and senators behind bars. I doubt I’ll see those in the Bush administration who engaged in unconstitutional activities sufficiently punished, ever. They’ll all go along on their merry way and live the life of luxury all their crimes netted them while I and my family continue to struggle day by day to make ends meet. They’ll continue to support their billionaire bums who will continue to beg for more money from the common man. They’ll continue to rob me of my rightful income that I earned through my hard work and labor in the form of taxation. They’ll continue to force me through said taxation to pay for services I don’t use, such as bailing out financial institutions that should rightfully fail. They’ll continue to make laws infringing upon my God given rights and continue to grow government rather than reduce its size. I can only hope that the polls I read were correct and the vast majority of people do indeed find these bailouts as objectionable as I find them. I can only hope that in six weeks when it comes time to vote the people remember who it was that argued for these bailouts and who it was that voted for them. Then I hope the people vote those responsible for this mess out of office. Let’s break the back of this duopoly. At least that would be a step in the right direction.
A Third Party Vote is Not Wasted
Recently, I wrote an article explaining my views on why Ron Paul was able to gain so much support from the common man and raise the kind of money he did while Bob Barr was not. I half expected to get some emails from Bob Barr supporters telling me I was wrong, but that never happened. Instead, I got a few messages from Chuck Baldwin supporters who took issue with the one sentence I wrote about him. In the interest of fairness and to further clarify my point of view for some of my readers who may be seeking the best alternative for this most confusing election cycle, I thought I’d offer up a bit more analysis of the third party candidates.
First, let me make it clear that my basic views on voting haven’t changed. I still believe that most third parties are significantly better (at least in some respects) than either the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s sad to think that a hundred million or more votes are going to be wasted on men like Barack Obama and John McCain who obviously couldn’t care less about the foundations this country was built upon. It’s insanity to keep electing these same party politicians over and over again and expect to get different results. I say the big government statists have had their opportunities and they’ve led this nation down the path to becoming a nightmarish mix of police, nanny, and surveillance states that even George Orwell would have had problems imagining. It is well past time the stranglehold this duopoly has on the nation was broken and someone else got the opportunity to lead. The change that this nation needs will not come from the establishment candidates who simply pay lip service to the concept of change. Perhaps the change needs to come from the people. We must be the change we seek. To help accomplish this, we need to change the types of people we vote into office. Unfortunately, I don’t foresee the vast majority of Americans suddenly becoming enlightened.
There are, indeed, a couple of very important issues that all the third party candidates agree on, and their points of view are in opposition to the establishment candidates’. War is a big issue where the third parties disagree with the Republicans and the Democrats. I know that Democrats will say that their man wants to end the war in Iraq, but we are involved in more countries than Iraq and the Democrats will carry on with occupying those and they certainly don’t want out of Iraq soon enough. While third party candidates are calling for immediate withdrawal of troops, Mr. McCain wants war with no end and I can’t be certain what Mr. Obama wants. If one wishes to vote on this issue alone, then any of the third party candidates would be a better choice than the two the establishment hopes you’ll vote for.
The other issue I think the third party candidates agree on is the issue of cleaning up the corruption in the federal government. This corruption runs deep and it stems, in my opinion, from the stranglehold on power the two establishment parties have enjoyed for far too long. I have believed this to be true for most of my life and I have voted accordingly. This year, for the first time since Ross Perot ran, I believe I saw a breath of life in the struggle to take the power of the establishment back from the elite and return it to the people. It would give this journalist great hope to see just ten percent or so of the electorate voting third party, if for no other reason than to send a message to the establishment that we grow weary of their failed policies and are looking for a genuine shift in direction. If twenty percent of the people were to do so it would be fantastic, the politicians would take notice, and I would be exuberant. The more people that can be convinced to vote third party, any third party, the better in my opinion, and that works for anyone who wants to send a message by writing in any candidate who advocates freedom or even writing in a “none of the above” vote.
That said, I believe that certain third party candidates are better choices than others. Bob Barr still hasn’t earned my trust, despite the fact that he’s joined the Libertarian Party and says he will abide by their principles. Merely stating something doesn’t make it so. Yes, I do believe he is a smaller government type of guy, but he still seems like the kind of person who is simply interested in gaining power, and the more the better. How am I to believe someone who has made a career out of equivocating and pandering? Perhaps he has changed and he is sincere, but I just don’t feel comfortable supporting him. He still strikes me as a big government politician, albeit one who has decided to call himself a Libertarian. Perhaps in a few years if he has the chance to prove himself I would support him, but not right now. In spite of all that, he is a much better pick than either the Republican or the Democrat candidates and I don’t begrudge his supporters when they decide to vote for him. At least they are sending a message to the establishment that they don’t feel represented by either of those parties.
Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are also candidates that have their faults, in my opinion, but either one of them would be a better choice than Obama or McCain. Both those third party candidates have very good intentions, I’ve no doubt of their sincerity in their desire to help people and I am sympathetic to that, but using the power of the state to achieve such ends is nothing more than forced wealth redistribution. If they were to start a private charity I would certainly be willing to donate what I could afford, but forcing people to donate is morally objectionable. Both these candidates feel that government is the answer to too many of our problems, most of which are government created, where I feel that the private sector could do a better, more efficient job. They do, however, at least seem to have their hearts in the right place and I must commend them for that. They are also seemingly more honest and forthright than the average politician. At least they don’t try to hide their socialist tendencies and will not waffle or flip flop on issues. This, again, puts them one step above most politicians. Again, I would not fault anyone who decided to support either McKinney or Nader. Certainly there are many former Democrats who are fed up with their party cozying up to the Republicans who would prefer to see either one of these people in office than the Democrats’ candidate. I say, go ahead and vote that way, if that is your wish, and don’t waste your vote on Obama. It’s time to send the establishment a message.
This brings me to Chuck Baldwin. I have a lot to say about him, enough that I think he deserves an article dedicated to him. When I wrote a couple of weeks back – in an article which was supposed to be about Bob Barr’s failure to raise money – a simple sentence: “Chuck Baldwin is also a man of good intentions who claims to be a strict constitutionalist, and yet he wants to maintain a government presence in certain areas of one’s personal life where government presence does not belong.” I was sent a few emails from a couple of Mr. Baldwin’s supporters questioning the meaning of that statement. I wrote that sentence because that was the genuine impression that I had of his campaign from looking at his website, looking at the Constitution Party’s platform, and listening to the opinions of some of those whose opinions I respect. I reported my objections to Mr. Baldwin’s stances on some of the issues and I was shown that my impressions were most likely wrong. Looking more deeply into the man’s political beliefs, reading his words in interviews and listening and watching some of his Youtube videos has caused me to reconsider his candidacy. Even before I did this I felt that if I was going to vote for someone other than a write in, it would most likely be him. Now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the best third party candidate out there for someone concerned about smaller government and personal liberty.
I will go into more detail explaining why I felt as I did and why I’ve changed my mind in another article. For now, I will conclude by saying Chuck Baldwin is not the perfect candidate for president, but neither was Ron Paul. There are some things I disagree with both these candidates on, but these are relatively minor issues when compared to the bigger issues of ending all foreign wars, bringing all our troops home, guarding our own borders, repealing unconstitutional laws, restoring lost civil liberties, returning to a constitutional monetary system and shearing down the federal government to a constitutional size. In these and other areas, Chuck Baldwin’s stances mirror Ron Paul’s policies. He is on the ballot in 37 states and available as a write-in in 10 more. They are still trying to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Citizens of Oklahoma and North Carolina will not be able to legally vote for him if he is their choice, to the shame of those two states. I certainly can understand why anyone would support this man and he seems an excellent choice to spend your vote on.
Voting is a very personal thing. What is right for me may not be right for you. It is something that we should all use our best judgment when doing. But it seems to me to be a waste to vote for a Republican or a Democrat and then expect anything to change for the better. There is an old adage that says something to the effect of if you keep trying the same failed solution to the same problem, you’ll get the same results. In fact, doing that is one definition of crazy. The time has come to shake up the establishment. A vote for a third, forth, fifth or sixth party candidate is not a wasted vote. I believe the majority of Americans in their hearts know this to be true, they just don’t seem to be able to let their brains act upon it. Hopefully, this can change.
Don’t Speak Bad Of McCain
Cut his mike, producer suggests
The Keating Five scandal, and John McCains role in it, has received relatively little mention in presidential campaign coverage, and at least one Fox News host seems dedicated to keeping it that way.
F&Fs Steve Doocy told Papantonio to pipe down, called him rude and demanded he cut it out. A show producer could be overheard saying cut his mike.
Uncaged
This November 4, Californians should vote YES! on Prop 2 a modest measure that stops cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, ending the practice of cramming farm animals into cages so small the animals can’t even turn around, lie down or extend their limbs.
Muslims of world honor Int’l Quds Day
Millions of people around the world have held massive rallies on the International Quds Day in support of Palestinian people’s rights.
Demonstrations are underway in different countries, including Iran, Iraq, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and the city of al Quds (Jerusalem).
International Quds Day, an initiative of the late Founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini, is observed in all Islamic nations. Demonstrations by Muslims and concerned individuals worldwide show support for the Palestinian people suffering under occupation and hardship.
Quds Day is held on the fourth Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan every year.
People in several other countries also honored the occasion.
Millions of Iranians took to streets throughout the country to show solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Metarie Lawmaker Considers Sterilization Measure
NEW ORLEANS – State Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, fears Louisiana may be headed toward an economic crisis if the percentage of people dependent on the government is not decreased.
His solution: pay impoverished women $1,000 to have their tubes tied so they will stop having babies they can’t afford.
The idea came to LaBruzzo after hurricanes Katrina and Gustav when the state was forced to evacuate, shelter and care for tens of thousands of people.
“I realized that all these people were in Louisiana’s care and what a massive financial responsibility that is to the state,” LaBruzzo said. “I said, ‘I wonder if it might be a good idea to pay some of these people to get sterilized.’”
Tutu urges Israel ‘war crime’ probe
Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop, has said that Israel may have committed a war crime when it attacked the town of Beit Hanoun in Gaza two years ago, killing 19 people.
He told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Thursday: “The response of a largely secret internal [Israeli] military investigation is absolutely unacceptable from both legal and moral points of view.
“Faced with this absence of a well-founded explanation from the Israeli military … the mission has to conclude that there is a possibility that the shelling of Beit Hanoun constituted a war crime.”
Feds give customs agents free hand to seize travelers’ documents
(09-23) 17:06 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — The Bush administration has overturned a 22-year-old policy and now allows customs agents to seize, read and copy documents from travelers at airports and borders without suspicion of wrongdoing, civil rights lawyers in San Francisco said Tuesday in releasing records obtained in a lawsuit.
The records also indicate that the government gives customs agents unlimited authority to question travelers about their religious beliefs and political opinions, said lawyers from the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They said they had asked the Department of Homeland Security for details of any policy that would guide or limit such questioning and received no reply.
Pakistan: Whose Drone is it Anyway?
Following up on yesterday’s myriad of reports regarding what did or didn’t happen to a US Predator Drone near the South Waziristan border, Pakistan’s military has officially admitted to recovering the wreckage of a downed US drone near the border which suffered a malfunction and crashed, finally putting to rest speculation about the incident.
Or perhaps not. Residents still insist the plane was shot down by tribesmen rather than crashing on its own. And though yesterday a US defense official denied that any drones were missing, today a military spokesman conceded that a drone did in fact go down. However, he maintained that the drone crashed in Paktika province, and not close to the Pakistan border. He also said the US recovered the downed craft “immediately.”
Pakistan Investigating US Marine Activity Inside Marriott Hotel Days Before Huge Bombing
Authorities probing into truck load of steel boxes unloaded into hotel in secret by marines
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Sept 24, 2008
Pakistani authorities investigating last Saturday’s huge bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad are looking into evidence that US marines were occupying two floors just days prior to the blast and were witnessed unloading a truckload of steel cases inside.
“The authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the government of Pakistan,” Pakistan’s largest newspaper The News reported.
The reports of the mysterious activity first surfaced in the Pakistani media on Sunday.
According to the accounts, several witnesses, including Pakistani government officials, described seeing a US embassy truckload of steel boxes unloaded while all entrances to and from the hotel were locked down at around midnight on the 16th September.
The cases were not taken through security scanners in the hotel’s lobby, but were shifted directly to the fourth and fifth floors, the same floors that fire broke out on after the truck bombing on Saturday.
“Already, the government has got information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage,” The News also reported.
The reports have also been picked up in the press in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
A Vote For Chuck Baldwin is Not Wasted
2008 Leave a Comment
A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article about Ron Paul’s ability to raise money and Bob Barr’s failure to do so. In the course of that article I expressed my impressions of some of the other third party candidates in a not too favorable light. This was also an expression of my frustration and anger at the system which removed the candidate I most supported, the candidate I feel would provide the best leadership for this nation. In my mind Ron Paul is still the most principled, viable candidate put forth by any political party in this election season, but I begin to question the wisdom of my plan to write him in on a ballot where it almost certainly would go unnoticed. The thought of writing “This ballot intentionally left blank” as a protest and a show that I reject the government’s rule over me and no longer consent to be part of the system seemed an even better alternative, but the ballot is anonymous and so I must wonder if it would really accomplish anything at all except maybe give some bureaucrat a good laugh. This left me to re-examine the choices I had left.
I explained my impressions of other third party candidates in an earlier article and promised I’d dedicate an article to Chuck Baldwin. This is mainly because of the pro Chuck Baldwin emails I received after I wrote the first article. Many of his supporters were adamant that he is a strict constitutionalist, but I had my reservations. I was under the impression that he advocated government intrusions into our bedrooms. I was under the impression that he was in favor of federal laws that would try to moderate personal behavior. Perhaps this was due to his being a pastor of a Baptist church. Perhaps it was due to the Constitution Party’s platform. In any case, I was shown that my impressions were mistaken.
There were a couple particular Chuck Baldwin supporters who wrote me very articulate and persuasive emails. They were very polite in asking me to explain in greater detail my misgivings and then in responding to explain their positions and point out my misconceptions. I told one respondent that I felt he was a good writer and that he should publish his point of view in an online publication or blog. Mr. Baldwin has been largely ignored by the mainstream media and his campaign just hasn’t attracted the type of attention Ron Paul’s campaign managed. I believe this is because Ron Paul is a part of the establishment, like it or not, although the establishment does everything it can to keep his voice from being heard. Mr. Baldwin, like all third party candidates, faces an unfair system geared toward keeping the powerful establishment in power and a biased media geared toward doing its best to silence any other significant points of view. This, in my humble opinion, is the sad truth of our modern political process.
Politics is a dirty business. I don’t know if this has always been true, but it’s certainly been true for much of mankind’s written history. It attracts people of questionable character. It attracts those who wish to wield power over others. This is just the nature of the beast. That is one reason I find it difficult to trust anyone involved in politics. It is easy to smear a candidate. It is easy to accuse him of being crazy, a theocrat, a neocon, a bigot, an extremist of some sort or any number of undesirable things and many people will hear such accusations and believe them without question. I am not beyond such failings, for I am as human as anyone else. Ron Paul had to overcome such obstacles in his run and did an excellent job of it when he was given the opportunity. It is difficult to overcome such labels if one is never given the opportunity to explain one’s positions to a large audience. Third party candidates will not get the chance to participate in debates with Obama and McCain, will not get news coverage every time they open their mouths to speak like the two establishment candidates and will not get the exposure the establishment puppets have the privilege of receiving. This is not only unfair and unfortunate, but it also leaves voters believing they have to choose between two undesirable choices, to put it nicely.
I had a correspondence with a woman named Teri Owens. She is the State Secretary for the Constitution Party of Ohio. She was quite polite and I felt honored that she respected my opinion enough to make the effort to change it. I told her specifically that I had thought Mr. Baldwin supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and that he wanted to ban stem cell research in the United States. I pointed to Mr. Baldwin’s own campaign website as evidence of this. She assured me that he wasn’t for such an amendment and pointed me to a quote of his where he spoke against the constitutional amendment. She also pointed out that he was simply against funding stem cell research with federal dollars (something I agree with) not against the private sector pursuing such research and using their own money to do so.
I answered Ms. Owens’ email with a request for links to videos and articles to help clarify Mr. Baldwin’s positions. I also asked her what his position was on the war on drugs as I had heard he was a big drug warrior. More specifically, I asked her about his position on medical marijuana. Ms. Owens happily provided these. Here are some excerpts from her email:
“Here is what Chuck has to say about the “drug war”:
“I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do ever[y]thing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351
(Author’s note: This means he would do away with the DEA, which is an improvement to what the two “major” party candidates would do, as they would do nothing)
With Regard to Medical Marijuana
This also falls within the jurisdiction of the states and you can see from his response that he recognizes the limitations of the Federal government. Here is a clip:
“I think that’s a states’ issue. I don’t think the federal government should have anything to do with that…I think those are states issues and I respect that.”
“The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. We advocate, therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world.”
http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1692
With Regard to Marriage:
In the same interview with The New American Magazine referenced above, Chuck Baldwin states:
“I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.”
The Defense of Marriage Act used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. The other side of that coin is that if a state chooses to recognize same sex marriage, Baldwin admits there is nothing that he, as President or the Federal government in general is “Constitutionally” permitted to do about it.
“If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t think that’s a necessary approach.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
With Regard to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
“Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped.” “ (end quote)
One of the wonderful things about Ron Paul’s presidential campaign was his ability to spread the message of liberty to so many. He was already a popular congressman in Texas and already had a reputation on capital hill being known as “Dr. No.” He had a twenty year voting record under his belt and so his supporters could be certain he meant what he said. He was able to get into the debates and grappled with the establishment candidates extremely well. The common folk of this country came to know and support him because he was genuine, not because he made promises to them or tried to make them feel good. He didn’t pretend to be their savior. He simply remained honest and delivered the same message he had delivered for decades. And the Republicans rebuked him for that. Mr. Chuck Baldwin does not have that luxury. He has no voting record for us to look at. I looked at the Constitution Party’s platform and made some assumptions about him, but that was not fair. He doesn’t necessarily agree with the Constitution Party’s platform on all issues. Certainly Ron Paul didn’t agree on the Republican Party’s platform on all issues and I didn’t judge him because he is a Republican. I now chose to show the same courtesy to Mr. Baldwin. In some spots his stances might not be clear, and I believe that some of his words are carefully chosen to obfuscate in order to attract the maximum amount of voters, but that is the nature of politics. If one is willing to forgive these minor transgressions than certainly one would consider voting for Mr. Baldwin. Ron Paul has now endorsed him, and that certainly has a lot of pull in my book. One thing is definite, Chuck Baldwin is a superior choice to either Barack Obama or John McCain, or for that matter any of the socialist third party candidates we are presented with.
I’m still uncertain as to exactly what I will do when it comes to voting this November. As I’ve been shown these last couple of weeks, there’s always room to reconsider if one is willing. This world is in constant flux and one never knows what information may be revealed in the next few weeks. For right now, Chuck Baldwin is high on my list of possibilities.