Chuck Baldwin on Lou Dobbs


Chuck Baldwin appeared tonight on the Lou Dobbs show for a couple of minutes accompanied by Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned border patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. Lou Dobbs is hosting a series of shows called the “Independent Convention”, where he accuses the two major parties of colluding the destroy our country via open borders and mass, unrestricted, migration. Dobbs was broadcasting live from FAIR‘s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire Conference”, where 43 radio talk show hosts are simultanously broadcasting from Washington D.C.

Lou Dobbs asked what can be done about the illegal immigration issue and Chuck Baldwin answered, “Vote for Chuck Baldwin for President in 2008. The first day I become president, I will pardon Ramos and Campean and…will fire US Attorney Johnny Sutton.

46 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin on Lou Dobbs

  1. Trent Hill Post author

    I know. Baldwin only got about 30 seconds,lol, but it is better than he has done thus far. He’s been on CNN this morning, all over the print media today (cuz of the press conference), all over the blogosphere (because of the press conference and Barr’s not showing), and on Lou Dobbs–which was simultaneously braodcast on 43 radio stations—not a bad day.

  2. Trent Hill Post author


    Iv read all of the info sourrounding Ramos and Compean–and I think it is likely they acted inappropriately, but not criminally. 10 years is insane.

  3. G.E.

    Regardless, I’m not fighting with anyone but Barr backers today, not even over this. This is a great moment of unity in the third-party world, everyone against the odious Republican Barr and his cabal of criminal enablers. For them there should definitely be NO PARDONS!

  4. Mike Theodore

    Maybe I misinterpret “whatever force is necessary”.

    Maybe, I don’t know. Like GE, I really don’t want to get in a debate right now on anything, but for different reasons. A wee bit woozy from some celebrations and might not make any sense.

  5. G.E.

    It’s your birthday, right, Mike? Happy birthday! This is the last one you’ll ring in as a statist.

  6. G.E.

    I go from Big Guy to BIG guy?

    Which is worse?

    At least BIG is kinda cool, as in Notorious. On the other hand, Big Guy is somewhat godly.

  7. Trent Hill Post author

    I dont think iv ever recieved such nicknames, although the Southern States chairman of the CP today booted me out of the Chuck Baldwin Meetup group.

  8. Hugh Jass

    Did they kick you out because you got Ron paul on the ballot?

    Also, Trent, if I may get slightly off topic to complain, Barr has summed up all of the reasons not to vote for him with this disaster, and Baldwin is not on my ballot. Do you recommend voting Nader, writing-in, or not voting?

  9. Trent Hill Post author

    “Did they kick you out because you got Ron paul on the ballot?”

    A member of the group brought it up,and then several other people suggested that those who put Paul on the ballot were really Democratic operative or Republicans who were trying to lower Baldwin’s vote total (Rediculousâ„¢). I defended my actions — and was summarily kicked out of the group after effectively proving Ron Paul was a better constitutionalist than Chuck Baldwin.

  10. Trent Hill Post author

    “Also, Trent, if I may get slightly off topic to complain, Barr has summed up all of the reasons not to vote for him with this disaster, and Baldwin is not on my ballot. Do you recommend voting Nader, writing-in, or not voting?”

    Honestly? I’d vote for Barr. Voting for Nader will be seen as a progressive vote, whereas voting for Barr (no matter how stupid he is) will be considered a vote for one of the many liberty candidates–it’ll count as a vote for Paul in the end.

  11. Fred Church Ortiz

    Trent, is the SoS giving you static over Ron Paul? BAN’s chart lists him as disputed now.

  12. Trent Hill Post author

    BAN’s chart is wrong, so far as I know. My paperwork was turned in at the same time as John McCain’s.

  13. Trent Hill Post author

    Hugh Jass,

    Maybe Barr doesnt think it is–but that is how the media outlets will bill it.

    If write-ins wont be voted, you refuse to vote for Barr, and Baldwin isnt on the ballot—vote for Nader.

  14. G.E.

    No way. Do not vote for Barr. He wouldn’t even take the stage with Paul. Vote Nader! A man of integrity even where his views are wrong. Barr’s views are wrong and he’s a despicable human on top of that.

  15. G.E.

    And by the way, votes for Nader are not counted as “Progressive” but as protests against the two-party system.

    One of my econ professors, who converted me to a free trader, voted for Nader because he hated Bush and Kerry was “too liberal.”

  16. Trent Hill Post author

    Vote Baldwin, a friend of Paul’s who campaigned with him endlessly (I can detail it for you, its quite an impressive work-list) and is ideologically close to him.

  17. Hugh Jass

    I’m not sure, I’m torn between two candidates!

    I now think that a write-in vote might be good in fighting crooked ballot-access laws. However, a vote for Nader wouild have greater effect. Plus, Baldwin is closer to me on the issues. I’ll have a good night sleep and decide tomorrow.

  18. sunshinebatman

    Hill — tell the meetup guy to watch the press conference today where Baldwin said he’d prefer Ron Paul over Chuck Baldwin. (And almost offered him the CP nomination.)

    Also, start a huge pissy Internet catfight about it.

  19. Trent Hill Post author

    Yea, no thanks.

    I may be younger than him by 30 years, but maturity is not his strong suit.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    Ramos and Compean are slimeballs who belong under the jail for far longer than they were sentenced to.

    They beat a “suspect” (suspected of trading in a plant which should be perfectly legal) when he tried to surrender. When he ran from the beating, they fired multiple rounds at him, although fortunately they were bad shots and only got him once in the ass. Then they allowed him to escape while they tried to cover it their crimes.

    Ten years is nowhere near “too long” for assault, battery, attempted murder and obstruction of justice, all conducted under color of law. No would-be president who promises to turn goons like this loose to prey on new victims deserves the vote of any freedom-loving American.

  21. G.E.

    Err…. I admit to being horribly misinformed about this issue. I thought they killed the guy.


    While rhetoric calling them “heroes” is ugly and stupid, I DO think compensation to the victim is the appropriate penalty in this case, for sure.

    Fire them from the socialist border squad and make them get real jobs to pay their victim, of course.

  22. Trent Hill Post author


    Evidence,please. Iv peeled through the evidence and all of that seems to be speculatory.

  23. Trent Hill Post author

    That they fired upon him is solid. That he was hit in the ass is solid. That he was beaten…is taken on his word. That they tried to coverup the evidence…is taken on Johnny Sutton’s word.

  24. darolew

    Since Baldwin isn’t particularly well known, the only reason I’d vote for him is based on ideology. When he advocates the pardon of vicious thugs, this becomes a problem. They obviously aren’t heroes; compensation is all well and fine, but they should not be free of any punishment for their actions, which is what a pardon would do.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp


    They filed reports which lied about whether or not their firearms had been discharged. That’s their handwriting, not Johnny Sutton’s, on those reports.

    Here, read this. It’s in National Review and the author is no bleeding-heart immigration liberal like me.

    The two were sentenced to the absolute MINIMUM they could get for discharging a firearm in a crime of violence. Effectively they got a free pass on the assault and battery, the attempted murder, and the coverup. They’re getting off easy, and nobody who promises to pardon them deserves to be elected President of the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *