Enough Already

Enough already! That is what I keep telling myself regarding the elections.

Is anyone really still considering what to do? It seems not to be so. It seems that people have made up their minds what they will do and now are only arguing with others and with themselves about it.

I really think the real arguing is really that, arguing with selves. Most people have made up their minds to vote for someone with whom they are not pleased. At least this is what I perceive from those who desire a constitutional republic that truly seeks to promote and defend the good of all. By “All” I mean truly that, from the very tiniest and most helpless and without voices that can be heard, to the wealthiest and strongest and most admired in society. Little babies who are in the earliest stages of development and old codgers in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks ALL are people who are protected by the Constitution. Those who believe this to be true, even though the weak and the helpless are often deemed to be inconvenient and burdensome, believe that they nevertheless are created, yes, CREATED equal under the rule of their Creator. Those who believe this are arguing with themselves, trying to convince themselves that someone who does not honor this higher authority quoted in the Declaration upon which the Constitution is founded can be voted for without violation of conscience, without violation of one’s integrity.

The matter is greatly complicated for those who are aware of the third party candidates, especially of those running for the highest civil office in the land. There is one presidential candidate who truly stands apart from the rest. Chuck Baldwin really makes this matter more complicated, especially for those who want to convince themselves that Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Hale and Hamilton and Hancock and Franklin and Jones and the many others who were unwilling to settle for any less than what they counted as true to their convictions really don’t have anything to say to us today. Those who want to convince themselves that such absolutism is no longer possible have to work hard to justify their choice to resist voting for someone like George Washington.

But then maybe people like me are the ones fooling themselves. Maybe such absolutism has never really existed.

What do we observe from such men as the founders of this nation? Did they all agree on everything? Certainly not. Yet they nominated men with whom they agreed. If no such person could be found, they themselves ran for office. Yes, they worked together with whomever was elected, but they voted for what they believed.

Is that different than what most people today are doing, especially among those who profess to have strong convictions?

It certainly seems to be different from what I am seeing and hearing.

Perhaps in my statements I do overstate things, at least with regard to what is possible in the civil realm. But then I believe in the God who says that with Him all things are possible. I believe in the God who created all men equal in terms of their value in the world and in connection with His love. I believe in the God who says that He recreates us to be perfect even as He is perfect.

Because of this, I cannot accept the notion of settling for the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two undesirables. I believe in looking to that which is the very highest and best, even in the political arena. I believe in demanding absolute commitment from a candidate, commitment to protecting and defending the Constitution and to protecting and defending All of “We the People.”

In the past, I was less informed than I am after many years of study and experience. I the past I was less able to discern between candidates. In the past I knew less of the Constitution and of the history that led to its formulation and of the history that shows the many ways in which it has been ignored and abused.

Now I know at least a little more, and I cannot ignore what I have observed and learned. So I will not settle for a lesser candidate even though for all appearances that candidate may have a better chance of prevailing or winning. After all, what good will his victory do me, if he does not truly represent what I believe is right and good?

In this ongoing battle the issue of integrity arises. Perhaps a reminder of the definition would be a fitting ending for this post.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Well, perhaps it is enough already. Perhaps it was enough even before this post. Perhaps it is simply time to vote and accept what is coming.

Perhaps.

Third Party Presidential Debate

In the following video, also available at Baldwin/Castle 2008 and at YouTube Third Party Presidential Debate, Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader express their positions and give a bit of counter on the areas where they are not aligned. Amazingly, however, at least from my observation, the two are in agreement on more things than they are in disagreement.

Also to my amazement, is the number of issues in which Nader makes good sense. He is clearly a well-intentioned person, devoted to what he believes, and willing to stand apart from others in order to remain faithful to the principles that he holds.

The debate, in my opinion, was more of an moderated discussion of ideals, and well-worth viewing. Here it is.




My evaluation of the views expressed by the two candidates is that if Mr. Nader held to the clearly stated basis of the Declaration of Independence, that he and Baldwin would agree on almost everything. As I perceive the difference between the two men and their expressed stands, the difference can be summed up in the matter of where human rights have their origin. Chuck Baldwin believes that human rights have their origin in the clearly stated words of the Bible, as God’s revelation of His Word and will. Ralph Nader believes that human rights have their origin in whatever can be derived from nature and from the will of the people. Interestingly, the two candidates deal with the matters of the Constitution and the founding of the nation differently according to their presumed bases for human rights. By and large, Nader is more prone to make allusions to the founding documents and the founding fathers, while Baldwin is far more prone to quotation of what the founding documents and founding fathers actually say.

This seems to me to be significant.

In contrast to the Obama/McCain campaigns and debates, they don’t even do a decent job of alluding to the founding documents and the founding fathers. This seems to me to be even more significant.

Enjoy the video and make your own evaluations, please.

Chuck Baldwin on Bailout Bureaucracy

The Baldwin Campaign has a YouTube site with videos available. If you are interested in understanding the issues of the economy and the bailout and would like to hear from someone who actually wants to do something about it, check out Chuck Baldwin on Bailout Bureaucracy.

A more in depth explanation can be viewed at Money as Debt.

Chuck Baldwin on NPR

On the October 18, 2008 National Public Radio broadcast Weekend Edition Saturday, host Scott Simon, interviewed Chuck Baldwin.

The interview is available here.

The transcript of the interview is provided as well as a link for listening to the interview.

However, there is a commentary that precedes the transcript, and in this commentary a very important misstatement is made. The commentary says:

As president, Baldwin says, he would work toward overturning the 16th Amendment, which establishes Congress' authority to levy taxes. In addition, he would like to see the IRS and the Federal Reserve disbanded.

The misstatement is in the report that the 16th Amendment establishes Congress’ authority to levy taxes. This is a false statement. The authority of Congress to levy taxes is established in section 7 of the First Article of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment establishes a tax on income. This was something never intended by the founding fathers and was added to the powers of Congress in 1913. The misstatement implies that without the 16th Amendment that Congress will be unable to levy the taxes necessary. This is a false implication and the reader should beware.

What Baldwin, like Ron Paul, wants to do, is to set the American people free from the slavery created by the taxes upon their incomes, and to set them free from the slavery of having to report every aspect of their lives to the government. Imagine how much more productive people’s lives would be if they were set free from the endless tax forms and regulations. Imagine how much more disposable income people would have if they did not have such large portions of their paychecks withheld from them against their wills. Imagine how such an increase in disposable income would benefit the economy, as people were set free to utilize their incomes as they choose, rather than having the government tell them how much they can keep for themselves, for their families, and for their posterity

If you would like to read the Constitution for yourself, it is available at the following links:

U.S. Constitution Online

The Constitution of the United States of America

House of Representatives Educational Resources

A Chronology of US Historical Documents

Chuck Baldwin Interview

Finally, an intelligent, articulate, constitutional, and credible candidate!



This video and other discussions are also available at Chuck Baldwin For President Forum and Freedom Money Bomb.

A Candidate for President

The Constitution Party had its nomination convention at the end of April and now has its nominee for the upcoming presidential election for the United States of America.

Chuck Baldwin was nominated for President and his Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

Chuck has published a column in which he states what he will do if elected as the President of the United States. You can read his column at “If I Were President”.

Also of interest is the Constitution Party’s platform.

I have mentioned this platform in a previous post entitled, Constitution Party Platform. At that time I knew considerably less about the Constitution Party, but I have since learned more about it and I believe that I now have a party with which I agree in most areas. It certainly represents what I know of the Constitution far better than either the Democrat or Republican parties and their candidates do.

I offer this post and the accompanying links for any who would like to investigate Candidate Baldwin’s and the Constitution Party’s positions.