Posted on 07/14/2008 9:48:03 AM PDT by mnehring
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.
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
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.