See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 2137
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-109) not displayed.
.
.
.
#110. To: buckeye (#106)
(Edited)
In practice, I might tend to side with you. But buck, Pastor Baldwin is not an intellectual ideal construct. He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yes I honestly believe that Pastor Baldwin is unsuitable for the Oval Office, a leadership position. He is not an AmericaFirster, frankly. His deficits are different from McCain's or Obama's but a vote for any of the 3 men would be a vote for a lesser of the 3 evils depending on one's perspective on evil.
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You are correct. I have read little of what the good Baptist pastor has written. What I have read was the article link that robnoel inserted to this thread, wherein Pastor Baldwin defended Ron Paul's position on Israel. But in the course of Pastor Baldwin's argument, he presents half-truths about Israel and about our current government's relationship with Israel. This shows to me that Pastor Baldwin struggles with what he would do, as opposed to what he says should be done. Since Pastor Baldwin could not tell the full truth in the article cited by robnoel, I find that dishonesty disturbing. Our current ME foreign policy is AmericaLast/IsraelFirst. I have no confidence in Pastor Baldwin changing the course that has been set for America starting with LBJ's Administration. Baldwin's religious outlook would interfere and cloud his judgment when it came to reversing America's current ME foreign policy. I have no doubt whatsoever. Obama and McCain have been coopted by lobby groups to maintain status quo in our AmericaLast ME foreign policy. Baldwin has been compromised by his religious mindset. Different influences but the end result is the same in all 3 men. For me, misguided foreign policy is the greatest single threat to America's future. Protecting the unborn blah blah pales in comparison from my point of view. Abortion is not bleeding US blood and treasure in the ME - foreign policy is.
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Chuck Baldwin has a chance if enough people mistake him as a Baldwin from the family of actors with that name, that's about it. ;-D
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness." Please note nothing about "foreign policy"
It is very obvious the Religious Right has become little more than a propaganda mill for the GOP. In their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand, they are willing to compromise their principles, no matter how important they are to them. As such, it has become a hollow movement. They are now a movement without a cause, except for the chore they take on of advancing the Republican Party.” James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him. How does this make sense? I mean, if family values are a main focus of his movement, how can he condone the shallow, self serving behavior McCain displayed to his first wife when he dumped her for the younger and very rich beer heiress Cindy Hensley? And how does Obama, a man who has been married to the same woman for nearly two decades with two daughters to show for it, “contradict” and “threaten” Dobson’s view of the family? One thing is certain, he and other leaders of this movement will have at least four years in the socio-religious-political wilderness to reflect on the bizarre spectacle they represent to the rest of us and their flock as they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and how not to repeat their role in this upcoming defeat of the GOP in the general election.
Please note nothing about "foreign policy" And I'm sure you would agree that US Constitution - written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 - is the written charter which gives the US government its marching orders, so to speak. In the US Constitution, its first three words – “We The People” – confirms that the government of the United States exists to serve American citizens. Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
Although I agree with you on this Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. This is pure BS Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
The Founding Fathers saw the dangers of European influence where church and king were intertwined and that's why the Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America. Having a Pastor Baldwin figure, or a Rabbi Baldwin figure, or a Cleric Baldwin figure in the White House is antiethical to the Founding Fathers' conceptual dream for America. Furthermore family values are warm fuzzy mushy watch words for a movie script but how do family values help a President to save America from its single worst threat to its future survival - ie foreign entanglements and 24/7 militarism?
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens - are the responsibility of a Higher Power and the property of its mother. How does the US government have any constitutional standing with regards to an unborn fetus? Frankly I don't understand where you see the US government's obligation to serving the unborn fetus comes from.
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
life begins at inception
In 1791, the first Constitutional amendment came into effect. The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state because it was written to protect its citizens' religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of an official or exclusive church or sect. My religious freedom would be threatened if the President of the USA - the face of the most powerful elected office in government - were that of a minister, rabbi, or cleric. Perhaps you need to read the text of the Constitution including its Amendments more carefully.
She's an unborn baby butcher too! No way! -end sarcasm-
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
de facto....OK in your interpretation... however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution does not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
Biblically speaking that is so. But the Bible is not the Constitution and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities. According to Amendment XIV, it's all PERSONS BORN [as opposed to fetuses unborn] who are named as being citizens of the United States and of the State they reside. Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem? Perhaps if it were Cleric Baldwin or Father Baldwin as opposed to Pastor Baldwin we were talking about, you might see the problem more clearly.
Granted...however "it's all PERSONS BORN" if you agree that life begins at inception thats a moot point ...no?
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
and a round and round we go
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Haaaahahaha! Now you're catching on. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Yeah, right. You see perfectly and know all things. Gotcha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. This shiite must be revoked immediately.
And it's precisely because of this type of inflammatory statement, that serves no political discourse purpose but is only put forward to be an insult, that causes you to be perceived and summarily dismissed by most posters as a crude brain-addled headcase. Adding "sarcasm" or " ;-) " qualifiers does not transform your mindless droppings into legitimate thoughtful political opinion, btw.
I think you are mistaking my paleocon political sentiments re: how the Constitution defines US government powers and responsibilities with my personal religious beliefs that dictate how scrapper should and does behave. Actually fyi I am not an atheist. But I do not think my personal religious beliefs or your personal religious beliefs have any bearing on what is defined as our government duties by the US Constitution, which, btw, is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job in formulating the Constitution. I say we should not mess with success.
Sensitivity to Jews is one of the big motivations for our outright elimination of Christian pageantry and observance in public life in the past 30 years. Before that, we were a publicly Christian nation. It might have been somewhat uncomfortable for people who didn't believe the same doctrines as those being expressed, but at least there was consensus as to what communities wanted to observe on holidays and other notable days.
On this we agree however there is always a however our disagreement as you stated you are a "paleocon" a stand for federalism I am on the other side a anti-federalist
Every time you think about posting a pro-Israel remark, just put this nice lady's face in your mind for a moment. Keep in mind that she's what I see when I read your posts. Just letting you know.
Irrelevant to ANYTHING I have ever posted. I don't agree with James Dobson on his flip flop. I wouldn't and won't vote for McCain but I won't vote for your hero Obama either. McCain doesn't care how many he sends off to kill and be killed and Obama doesn't care how many babies are murdered. They are both nothings of the highest order.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Why not?
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
Eyes usually suffice. But not always. Can't always tell with fat chicks.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
My we sure are indignant. Listen, I tolerate your inane labeling of people in a manner meant to dehumanize and belittle for the 'sin' of deciding whom to vote for and who dare explain the reasons for their choice. In fact, I put up with allot of your crap without such a time of the month moment like you are having here. Maybe you should think about that. Because I don't give a rip about your whine if impropriety of my post when taken in the full context of things. In any event, thanks for sharing, I am amused, if nothing else.
It's not at stake. It is long lost. You want a return to constitutional federalism? Then blow up the interstate highway system. I'm serious. And it might very well work out that way in the long run anyway, albeit unintentionally.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
Perhaps the first order of business should be the passage of an amendment making amendment easier. IMO, the constitution is too hard to change, and, simply on the basis of the fact that the standard deviation of N votes is proportional to sqrt(n), both amendments and override of a veto should be easier. Looking at the initial number of senators the united states had, an override purely by chance was MUCH easier than today. The same chance today would require only 52 or 53 votes. A house override should require only a simple majority. The expansion of the number of senators and representatives has helped make the executive more powerful. It might not make us any freer, but the state and the lawyers who run it would have less desire and need to resort to sophistry.
Negro parents, as a rule, seem disposed not only to give larger liberty to their children than they ought, but they give absolute license in too many instances. In illustration of this fact, in cities particularly, children are allowed to go from their homes in the night-time and wander the streets amid their baleful associations until nine, ten, eleven o'clock and longer. And when they return home they do so unattended... This condition does not obtain alone among children of ignorant and poor parentage, but absence of good manners is also often found among children and youths who have had fair common and high school advantages. -- John Henry Smyth, 1902
In fact, I put up with allot of your crap without such a time of the month moment like you are having here. There is a solution for you if you don't like my posts and maybe you should make use of it. I have no problem with you not reading my posts. You shouldn't take any chance that you might learn something such as the fact that your hero is establishment clown through and through and that anyone who would support him OR McCain prove that they are not in touch with reality. The reality that both of them are traitors and un-American and should never have been considered for any position above that of dog catcher.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. In any event, thanks for sharing, I am amused, if nothing else. Forgot to mention this--in some parallel universe, should such a thing exist, and my twin is there perhaps he would care what you do or don't give a rip about. But in this universe and for me it would not be possible to care any less. The day I start worrying about what someone who supports establishment clowns thinks about me or what I post is the day I should be put away.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Nitpick: The Interstate Highway system was pushed through as a Defense Initiative. Congress is also permitted under the Constitution to create "Post Roads" which would also suffice to create a highway.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Comments (151 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI'm talking about the ideal pastor...
#111. To: scrapper2 (#110)
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
Lord Acton
#112. To: James Deffenbach (#111)
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
#113. To: scrapper2 (#112)
Lord Acton
#114. To: James Deffenbach, robnoel, buckeye (#113)
(Edited)
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
#115. To: scrapper2 (#114)
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
#117. To: scrapper2 (#116)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: scrapper2 (#114)
#119. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#120. To: robnoel (#118)
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness."
#121. To: scrapper2 (#120)
#122. To: Ferret Mike, robnoel (#119)
their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand...I mean, if family values
#123. To: robnoel (#121)
#124. To: scrapper2 (#122)
Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America.
#125. To: scrapper2 (#123)
Unborn fetuses - until they are born and become independent living creatures born on US soil or born to US citizens
#126. To: robnoel (#124)
They never called for a for a separation of church and state this was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist minister....maybe it would serve you to get a copy of Jeffersons Bible
#127. To: robnoel (#125)
#128. To: scrapper2 (#126)
(Edited)
The 1st Amendment is a de facto separation of church and state
#129. To: robnoel (#125)
#130. To: robnoel (#128)
however its freedom of religion rather than your view freedom from religion..the constitution did not bar a minister, rabbi, or cleric
#131. To: scrapper2 (#129)
and it is the Constitution that gives our government its marching orders, defining its powers and responsibilities.
#132. To: scrapper2 (#130)
How can the freedom of ALL US citizens' religious beliefs not be threatened when the head of state is also a RELIGIOUS LEADER - not merely a practitioner - but a religious leader of ONE specific religion? Hello? Don't you see the problem?
#133. To: robnoel (#131)
(Edited)
Secular Humanists' argument bump
#134. To: robnoel (#132)
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
#135. To: scrapper2 (#116)
My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Lord Acton
#136. To: scrapper2 (#129)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
#137. To: Rotara, robnoel, christine, rowdee, buckeye, mirage, lodwick, X-15, diana, Original_Intent, All (#127)
She's an unborn baby butcher too! No way! -end sarcasm-
#138. To: robnoel (#132)
The problem I see with your argument is only "Athieists" need apply
#139. To: scrapper2 (#138)
#140. To: scrapper2 (#138)
The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job in formulating the Constitution. I say we should not mess with success.
#141. To: Rotara (#134)
#142. To: Ferret Mike (#119)
James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him.
Lord Acton
#143. To: Old Friend (#30)
But you can't have legal murder in one state and it illegal in another state.
#144. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
#145. To: James Deffenbach (#142)
"Irrelevant to ANYTHING I have ever posted."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#146. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
The problem with your broad brush understanding is, you could not file an intelligent legal brief to oppose an unconstitutional power grab because you don't understand the legal principle at stake.
#147. To: Original_Intent (#32)
I do not believe that the 3/4 majority necessary to pass an amendment outlawing abortion exists
#148. To: Ferret Mike (#145)
I tolerate your inane labeling of people in a manner meant to dehumanize and belittle for the 'sin' of deciding whom to vote for and who dare explain the reasons for their choice.
Lord Acton
#149. To: Ferret Mike (#145)
Because I don't give a rip about your whine if impropriety of my post when taken in the full context of things.
Lord Acton
#150. To: Tauzero (#146)
interstate highway system
.
.
.