Chuck Baldwin: Zionism, Not Islam, Is America’s Biggest Threat

Chuck Baldwin, the 2004 vice presidential nominee and 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, published the following editorial yesterday:  

While evangelical Christians and pastors and conservative pundits on FOX News, radio talk shows, and Internet news sites constantly rail against the perceived threat that Islam poses to the United States (Saudi Arabia IS a real threat–most of the Islamic terror groups hail from Saudi Arabia–but of course, the U.S. considers the House of Saud an ally and has made over $11 billion in military aid available to them; and rarely do anti-Muslim Christians make any distinction between Islam in general and the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia in particular), almost no one dares to warn the American people about our country’s greatest threat: Zionism.

It is a fact, and anyone who is willing to do even a little personal research can easily discover the data proving it: Zionists heavily influence–if not outright control–the mainstream news media, the major motion picture industry, the popular entertainment industry, mainstream Christian religion, and the U.S. government. I’ll say it straight out: Zionism is not only a “clear and present danger” to the liberties of the American people; it is the BIGGEST danger to the liberties of the American people.

Since the creation of the Rothschild Zionist State of Israel in 1948–and its resultant pervasive influence on America–our country has almost completely lost its Christian heritage; the traditional family unit has been fractured to the point of obliteration; the entertainment and motion picture industries have become nothing short of massive purveyors of moral filth resulting in the almost universal loss of morality among our nation’s youth; the mainstream news media is nothing but a propaganda machine controlled by Zionist media moguls; and the foreign policy of the federal government of the United States is not led by American interests, but by Zionist interests.

The famed French philosopher Voltaire is quoted as saying, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Of course, the Zionist-controlled media complains that Voltaire never said this. Even if he didn’t, the statement is absolutely correct. Who is it that no American politician, journalist, news anchor, entertainer, actor, singer, or preacher is allowed to criticize–at least not without dire consequences? You guessed it: the modern Zionist State of Israel.

One can rant on and on against Islam, Christianity, or virtually any other faith or political system with NO repercussions. But dare to say a word against the Zionist State of Israel, and one will be quickly fired, publicly scorned, financially ruined, or worse.

Continue reading at Chuck Baldwin Live

123 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: Zionism, Not Islam, Is America’s Biggest Threat

  1. Ed Rankin

    I guess all those Orthodox Jews who opposed Zionism have unbalanced minds…

  2. Mark

    The statement “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” is often attributed to Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher. In fact, it is something said by Strom in his program, “All America Must Know the Terror That is Upon Us” (1993): “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” The misattributed quotation continues to spread across the Internet

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom

    Click on the link and read about the actual author of the quote, a man whose footsteps Baldwin now seems to be determined to follow.

  3. Mark

    “I guess all those Orthodox Jews who opposed Zionism have unbalanced minds…”

    Don’t be naive. Baldwin is using “zionist” as a euphemism for “Jew.”

    “Zionists heavily influence–if not outright control–the mainstream news media, the major motion picture industry, the popular entertainment industry, mainstream Christian religion, and the U.S. government. ”

    This is usually formulated by all the usual suspects as Jews rather than Zionists. Obviously, some of them are one and the same, but many Zionists in reality are not Jews and many Jews are not Zionists. Nevertheless it is very common for some such as Baldwin in this example to recycle age-old charges about what all the Jews control and formulate it as Zionists control.. blah blah blah, the same things that Jews have been accused of controlling for longer than Zionism has existed.

  4. Ed Rankin

    Objecting to Obama’s and Hillary’s policies makes one a racist and a misogynist?

  5. Aiden James

    Finally some truth and some competency out of a third-party… Although I vehemently disagree with the Constitution Party on nearly ALL social issues.

  6. Mark

    “So challenging Zionism makes one anti-Semitic?”

    No, using “zionsim” as a code word for Jews, as Baldwin does in this article does. Zionist just actually means someone who thinks Israel should exist, or has a right to exist. You can extrapolate further and take it to mean someone who is a big fan and defender of the nation of Israel, regardless of their own ethnicity or religion if any.

    Consider, further in the article:

    ” Israel is perhaps the world’s largest purveyor of pornography–using and controlling much of the pornographic industry in the United States and Europe. In addition, Zionists control most of the trafficking of sex-slaves in both the United States and Europe. Zionist entertainers, actors, comedians, singers, etc., constantly mock America’s Christian faith. ”

    What makes more sense in that paragraph – Zionists, or Jews? Clearly the latter. Again, a long time charge by antisemites against Jews being used as a euphemism there.

    “Objecting to Obama’s and Hillary’s policies makes one a racist and a misogynist?”

    No.

  7. SocraticGadfly

    VERY Interesting. That’ even more interesting inasmuch as I’ve considered the Constitution Party, even more than the GOP, to be the Religious Right true believers party.

  8. massimo

    To Ed Rankin

    No, to critizice Zionism does not require an unbalanced mind. I myself do not like Bibi, nor those extremists in the occupied territories, and happen to believe that a solution (based on two states, the sharing of Jerusalem, and some money for the ´48 displaced people) could now be reached pretty soon if it wasn’t for them. But, apart for the very evident use of the world Zionists as a proxi of Jews, as Mark observes, please note the paranoid, end of the world conspiratorial tone of the article. Israeli are strong and successful lobbyists, but so is the NRA, the AMA, Big Pharma, the military-industrial-complex and another thousand special interest eating at the carcasse in Washington. This guy even rethorically reminds of Mein Kampf.

  9. NewFederalist

    “This guy even rethorically reminds of Mein Kampf.”- Massimo

    Ah, there it is. Can’t possibly be critical of Israel in any way without that card being played.

  10. Massimo

    To NewFederalist

    why you want to pollute the discourse with ad-hominem attacks? It was simply a commentary about the rethorics of this guy. Read The Economist, for example. It is and has always been very critical to current Israeli policies against the Palestinians. But you won’t find in its pieces references to “mainstream media dominated by Zionists”, “the BIGGEST threat to American liberties”, “Rothschild Zionist State”, and other ludicrous extreme rights shibboleths and rethorical figures. Do you really believe that “the mainstream media”, from the WaPo to Le Monde, El País, the BBC, The Shangay daily, the NYT, L’Osservatorio Vaticano, the WSJ, Der Spiegel, la Repubblica, el Clarin, Tokio Shimbum, La Folha de San Paulo, Disney, Le cinc, the New Yorker, etc. are managed, at the editorial level, by a bunch of Jews that have a Skype conference every night to decide how to corrupt the American evangelical movement? Because this is the form in which the Jews (not even the Zionists) were described in Mein Kampf.

    By the way, most of the world ignores (in both sense of the word: they do not know and do not give a shit about) the evangelical Christian movement in the US. I am pretty sure Bibi knows how important it is for Israel to have the support of the American State, with its weapons and its diplomacy, but does not care a lot about the virginity of American girls.

  11. Jill Pyeatt

    No, using “zionsim” as a code word for Jews, as Baldwin does in this article does. Zionist just actually means someone who thinks Israel should exist, or has a right to exist.

    I don’t agree with that statement. I understand Zionists to be the ones pushing for genocide in Gaza. I do not believe all, or even most, Jews want that.

    Insisting that Zionists and Jews are the same seems anti-Semitic to me because you’re lumping everyone into one category.

  12. AJ

    A radical Christian fundamentalist and Ron Paul supporter who hates Jews? I am just shocked, totally shocked

  13. Eric Ward

    “Dr.” Baldwin, you have a misguided view of what Zionism is. Zionism is essentially just nationalism, no more harmless than American nationalism, French nationalism, and so on. Zionism calls for one country where Jews can go and feel safe from persecution. This didn’t exist in modern civilization until 1948 after some Jews suffered the Nazi Holocaust, the Soviet purges, the Spanish Inquisition, and so on.

    Israel is the 2nd freest Middle Eastern country only to the UAE on the on the Heritage Freedom Index (#1 concerning individual liberty), yes it’s an ethnic Jewish majority country, but a 21% minority is free to live there in peace as full Israeli citizens. Many are even doctors, lawyers, and even politicians.

    Zionism is not controlling the world, the US is backing their existence because they are our eyes and ears in that part of the world.

    Frankly, I find it nice to have a state with western traditions in government in that part of the world to balance out Islamic Republicans in Iran, in the “palestinian” terrorist nationless regime, and the Islamofascist kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All sorts of jurisdictions known for stoning dissent, throwing gays off roofs, and surprising feminine activity in society.

    Lastly, while we should phase our foreign aid in the long term. Why single out Israel? We give more aid to Afghanistan, and give money to countries that hate us like Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, and even North Korea thanks to UN obligations. Wouldn’t it be far more constructive putting energy into that?

    I hope your obsession over Israel and Zionism isn’t because of Jew hate, but it sounds like it is.

  14. Deran

    )A Isn’t “Massimo” comrade Filmore Frugal?

    B) I am a severe critic of the Israeli government. But Mr Baldwin does seem a bit of an anti-Jewish type?

    C) The UAE is the most “free” state in the Near East? Wacky.

  15. langa

    Baldwin makes some bad arguments in this article, but he also makes some good arguments that, for whatever reason, don’t seem to be made as often or as forcefully as they probably deserve to be.

    Unfortunately, many people will use the bad points he makes as an excuse to ignore the good points.

  16. langa

    Click on the link and read about the actual author of the quote, a man whose footsteps Baldwin now seems to be determined to follow.

    This is an perfect example of not one, but two logical fallacies: ad hominem argumentation, and guilt by association. The logical appeal of the argument is neither heightened nor lessened if Voltaire first said it, Strom first said it, or Baldwin made it up himself. Nor does quoting one thing a person said mean that you agree with any of the other things they may have said.

  17. dL

    Voltaire did not utter that phrase, which was invented by a neo-nazi in 1993.

    Baldwin’s text acknowledged it may be a misattributed quote

    Of course, the Zionist-controlled media complains that Voltaire never said this. Even if he didn’t, the statement is absolutely correct.

    The neo-nazi who allegedly said it didn’t actually say it, either. It would be a paraphrase of what he apparently said. No one knows for sure who came up with the actual phrase. In any event, the gist of the statement is not something that was first invented circa the early 1990s. That being said, the statement is NOT absolutely correct in that one can make a 1-1 relationship between social taboos and ruling class. Criticism of the state of Israel is not a general social taboo. However, it is pretty close to a political taboo within the ReThug party and a social taboo within Christian social conservatism.

    By most objective measures, Israel is a criminal, apartheid state. However, quite a few people, myself included, largely avoid the use of the word “Zionist” b/c of its association w/ white supremacism, holocaust denial and the kind of crank conspiracy theories Baldwin perpetuates in this piece(e.g, blaming Zionism for r-rated movies). To the extent that use of the term “zionism” is a social taboo in polite society, it is b/c of people like Chuck Baldwin.

  18. Darcy G Richardson

    “Baldwin makes some bad arguments in this article, but he also makes some good arguments that, for whatever reason, don’t seem to be made as often or as forcefully as they probably deserve to be.” — langa

    Agreed. For one of the most interesting and perhaps best critiques of anti-Zionism in the United States, I would highly recommend Brooklyn writer Jack Ross’s excellent biography of Elmer Berger, a Reform rabbi and longtime executive director of the American Council for Judaism — the country’s leading Jewish anti-Zionist organization at the time — who for nearly sixty years until his death in October 1996 was in the forefront of Jewish opposition to Zionism. It’s a great book.

    Berger, in the finest tradition of dissenting Judaism, was an extraordinarily thoughtful and courageous individual. In fact, he once gave the keynote address at a fundraising dinner for Rep. Paul Findley of Illinois, who had been targeted and viciously maligned by AIPAC — the powerful American-Israeli Political Action Committee — shortly after the publication of his book, They Dare to Speak Out, attacking the Israeli Lobby and its alleged immense influence in the U.S. government and on American foreign policy.

  19. paulie

    I understand Zionists to be the ones pushing for genocide in Gaza.

    The Palestinian population is actually growing, which is not exactly genocide.

    Insisting that Zionists and Jews are the same seems anti-Semitic to me because you’re lumping everyone into one category.

    Which is basically what Baldwin is doing here. He says Zionists rather than Jews and then accuses them of things Jews have been accused of for centuries. It doesn’t even make sense. You can find the exact same charges, in their original form saying “Jews” rather than “zionists,” in any number of Jew-hating publications.

  20. paulie

    )A Isn’t “Massimo” comrade Filmore Frugal?

    I don’t think so. Aiden James might be, but I’m not sure yet.

    B) I am a severe critic of the Israeli government. But Mr Baldwin does seem a bit of an anti-Jewish type?

    He does seem to be veering in that direction ever since he read Hoffman, whose nonsense he keeps pushing.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II and reread this full article at Chuck Baldwin Live, or any number of other recent articles there.

    C) The UAE is the most “free” state in the Near East? Wacky.

    They are high on the Heritage Foundation’s ranking of “economic freedom.”

  21. paulie

    The logical appeal of the argument is neither heightened nor lessened if Voltaire first said it, Strom first said it, or Baldwin made it up himself.

    True, but it is nevertheless instructive to see whose BS Baldwin is now spreading, when you look at the larger context.

    Nor does quoting one thing a person said mean that you agree with any of the other things they may have said.

    No, you have to look elsewhere in Baldwin’s article and his other recent articles, and in the works of his new beacon Michael Hoffman, for that.

  22. paulie

    Baldwin’s text acknowledged it may be a misattributed quote

    Is, not may be, and if he acknowledges that why did he leave it in without such acknowledgement earlier in the article?

  23. Deran

    “Tablet”? Really? They’ve always been a rightwing racist forum that also makes no bones abt hating all Arabs, all Gays and Lesbians etc. And no, I’m not going to waste my time rummaging through Tablet. Forward in the US and Ha’aretz in Israel are much more reliable sources of a zionist perspective on Israel and Judaism that the Tablet. imo.

    If Massimo is not Frugal Filmore than I apologize for making that accusation.

    I can accept that the Heriatage Foundation may think highly of the UAE. But that doesn’t make that statement abt the UAE and freedom seeming any less wacky to me!

  24. Massimo

    Who is Frugal Filmore? Sounds like a Dickens character… I am just an Italian dude living in Central America, anarchist in the tradition of Spencer McCallum, and with enough contact with reality, I hope, to be able to recognize nutjobs. This Chuck Baldwin sounds like somebody that would stone to death me and many people I know…

  25. Helen Moyle

    What about all those Israeli doctors who treat their Enemies? They set an example for being a humanitarian like no one else can compete with.

    What is your explanation for the HOLOCAUST? That it didn`t happen?

    A local veteran was at there when the doors to the Death Camp opened up. He threw up. Israel has more than earned the right to be a nation.

    Get your facts straight.

  26. Jill Pyeatt

    What is your explanation for the HOLOCAUST? That it didn`t happen?

    What does the Holocaust have to do with this article? No one here has said it didn’t happen.

    It’s wonderful that Israeli doctors sometimes treat their enemies. Isn’t that what most doctors do? I also don’t see anywhere that someone here has said Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.

  27. dL

    A local veteran was at there when the doors to the Death Camp opened up. He threw up. Israel has more than earned the right to be a nation.

    If we go by the logic that Israel earned a right to exist by way of a war criminal restitution, then Israel rightfully would be located somewhere between Germany and Poland. The Palestinians/Arabs didn’t put the Jews in the ovens.

  28. dL

    Is, not may be, and if he acknowledges that why did he leave it in without such acknowledgement earlier in the article?

    You will have to ask Chuck Baldwin…

  29. Andy

    No coercive government has a “right” to exist. Jews as people have a right to exist, just as everyone else has that same right.

  30. wolfefan

    Do I understand that Baldwin claims that the liberal media and the liberal Hollywood culture, often supportive of the BDS movement and often criticized for being anti-Israel, are in fact Zionists?

  31. paulie

    If Massimo is not Frugal Filmore than I apologize for making that accusation.

    Pretty sure Massimo is not, and on further examination I don’t think Aiden James is either.

  32. paulie

    I can accept that the Heriatage Foundation may think highly of the UAE. But that doesn’t make that statement abt the UAE and freedom seeming any less wacky to me!

    I don’t think even Heritage scores UAE very highly on civil liberties. What they mean by economic freedom is that operating a business is relatively unrestricted and taxes and regulations are low.

  33. paulie

    Who is Frugal Filmore? Sounds like a Dickens character… I am just an Italian dude living in Central America, anarchist in the tradition of Spencer McCallum, and with enough contact with reality, I hope, to be able to recognize nutjobs. This Chuck Baldwin sounds like somebody that would stone to death me and many people I know…

    Frugal Filmore is one of the many names of a persistent IPR troll, whose real name may or may not be Nathan Norman and whose screen names are too numerous to keep track of. He even creates whole separate blogs for many of his characters, as well as impersonates myself and other regular participants here at various times.

  34. paulie

    I also don’t see anywhere that someone here has said Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.

    When you say you oppose zionism you may not realize that is what you are saying. “Zionism” was a movement to create a modern nation-state of Israel. Since that state has now existed for the better part of a century, the term means different things to different people. For some people it still just means defending the right of Israel to exist because there are many people who believe it needs to be destroyed, including most of Israel’s neighbors and many other people all over the world. For others, Zionism is synonymous with Israeli expansionism and ultra-nationalism. And for some people, like Baldwin in this article, it appears to be a euphemism for Jews as he talks about “zionists” in the same exact conspiratorial terms as Jew-haters have talked about Jews for centuries.

    In reality, of course, many Jews are not zionists – even in the narrow sense. And many zionists, in either sense, are not Jews; many Christian fundamentalists in particular are ardent zionists, as I believe Baldwin himself was at one time (although I could be wrong).

  35. paulie

    No coercive government has a “right” to exist. Jews as people have a right to exist, just as everyone else has that same right.

    That is correct. However, even by that standard Israel is not uniquely bad among nation-state regimes. And there is a sense of “zionist” by which even anarchists can be zionists, that is if they believe that Jews have a right to live in the area that is now claimed by the Israeli regime and to create communities there. Or, to put it another way, that even if the Israeli regime were to collapse that no one else would have justification to remove existing Jewish communities there.

  36. paulie

    Do I understand that Baldwin claims that the liberal media and the liberal Hollywood culture, often supportive of the BDS movement and often criticized for being anti-Israel, are in fact Zionists?

    Yes, but it’s pretty obvious that he actually means they are controlled by Jews, and uses “zionists” because it sounds less bigoted.

  37. Louis Victor

    Anti Zionism and Anti Semitism are the flip side of the same coin.
    Anti Semitism was an accepted term in Europe in the early 1900s, and it was described as being against Jews in the government. The fear was that Jews would all fratrinize and dominate the country. That was the politically correct way expressing Jew hatred.

    Anti Zionism is the accepted term now, and is described as being against Jews being allowed to govern their own state. Of course out of all countries, Israel has to be obsessed about in a negative way. Today Anti Zionism is the politically correct way of expressing Jew hatred.

    Do Anti Zionists admit that they are racist against Jews? Usually not. It is the true, though; moreover, the truth hurts.

  38. Ed Rankin

    I don’t know how anyone here can know what’s in Chuck Baldwin’s head. Words are not always “code” for something else. He’s an intelligent guy. I’m guessing he chose his words intentionally.

  39. Massimo

    Just to clear any doubts I am not Frugal, or the other Aiden character, I am this guy: http://3cgroup.global/team/massimo/

    I got to know this blog last year when I started to be interested in the Libertarian party, because somebody I knew told me that Johnson had an actual chance to win at least a few states.

    I admire the dedication of a few of the posters, like Paulie and the lady from the libertarian radical caucus. I don’t believe we will ever achieve anything with democratic means, although I think that involvement in politics might increase awareness. I prefer to work directly, with for-profit start-ups in State-dominated industries and, if I can, through the Zede legislation in Honduras (the “start-up cities project”). If you want to know anything about the Zede, just ask me at massimo@fahorro.biz

  40. Andy

    Chuck Baldwin was friends with Constitution Party founder, Howard Phillips. Phillips was born Jewish, but later converted to Christianity.

    I doubt Chuck Baldwin hates all Jews.

  41. Andy

    My point was that no coercive government has the “right,” to exist, including the government of the land know as the USA.

  42. langa

    Words are not always “code” for something else.

    True. However, there are many people (typically leftists) who refuse to accept (or at least, refuse to admit) that anyone who disagrees with them might be arguing in good faith. Instead, whenever someone argues against them, their knee jerk reaction is to accuse that person of having sinister motives.

    Of course, sometimes the accusation is true. But true or not, it’s still an example of the ad hominem fallacy, since it’s an attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

  43. langa

    By the way, while that particular style of argumentation is most commonly found among leftists, it is not exclusive to them. It is also quite common among neocons, especially on foreign policy. (“You don’t think we should go to war with Country X? Then obviously, you must support the dictator that rules Country X!”)

  44. Arrow

    And it will continue to be a problem until we make it illegal for dual citizens to be in elected and appointed political positions. We have a ton of dual citizen zionists in the government. Where does their allegiance lie? Ben Franklin warned us.

  45. dL

    Anti Zionism is the accepted term now, and is described as being against Jews being allowed to govern their own state. Of course out of all countries, Israel has to be obsessed about in a negative way. Today Anti Zionism is the politically correct way of expressing Jew hatred.

    Do Anti Zionists admit that they are racist against Jews? Usually not. It is the true, though; moreover, the truth hurts.

    lol…if you want see the bigotry begin to flow, listen to the defenses of the Israeli ID system, the military checkpoints, the settlements, the separate roads, the naval and aerial blockades of Gaza, etc. The Palestinians/Arabs are the only class of people that a major US politician(Chuck Schumer) could deliver a speech advocating the use of starvation on as a political control tool and get away with it.

  46. dL

    By the way, while that particular style of argumentation is most commonly found among leftists, it is not exclusive to them.

    The victimizers are the true victims is universal today. It’s everywhere.

  47. dL

    However, even by that standard Israel is not uniquely bad among nation-state regimes.

    Israel’s naval and aerial blockade of Gaza puts them in a category alongside the United States in terms of being uniquely bad state actors. The willingness to use starvation, deprivation as a political control tool.

    And there is a sense of “zionist” by which even anarchists can be zionists, that is if they believe that Jews have a right to live in the area that is now claimed by the Israeli regime and to create communities there

    Tough sell to make a libertarian homesteading case for the Israeli settlements. Libertarian justice would require restitution for those settlements to remain legitimate claims.

  48. AJ

    Howard Phillips was a Christian not a Jew. Chuck Baldwin was also endorsed by Ron Paul, another anti-Semite.

  49. Andy

    Howard Phillips was born Jewish, but later converted to Christianity.

    Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite.

  50. FactsRule

    Not buying that thereligionofpeace.com & palwatch.org aren’t filled with decades overwhelming evidence that orthodox Islam isn’t a worldwide deadly injurious costly problem. One cannot find anywhere anything comparable about any other entity.
    As Liberalism & secularism destroy America, the author only sees the secular Liberal Jews, a few million at best, as to blame. His own non-Jewish population, several hundred million & all of their political, Hollyweird, & academic leaders, it seems, are all perfect angels.
    Accept, I have to hand it to him, he does include Evangelicals as the destroyers of America. Dude should really be writing from a psych. ward somewhere.

  51. Darcy G Richardson

    “Howard Phillips was born Jewish, but later converted to Christianity.” — Andy

    Andy’s right. Phillips converted to Christianity in the mid-seventies. He was also a far more complex guy than portrayed by his detractors. Among other things, he managed liberal Republican Richard Schweiker’s upset victory against Pennsylvania Senator Joseph Clark in 1968. (Schweiker, of course, later emerged as Reagan’s vice-presidential running mate at the 1976 Republican convention at the Kemper Arena in Kansas City in a last-ditch effort to stop Gerald Ford’s nomination.)

    Phillips later personally sought the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in solidly-blue Massachusetts, polling more than 65,000 votes in a five-way primary narrowly won by Paul Tsongas.

    In later years, Phillips fought valiantly for the cause of open politics in the United States, working with activists on both the left and the right. Arguably one of the country’s most principled spokesmen for the conservative movement, he literally spent the last twenty-three years of his life fighting the duopoly.

    I never shared his politics, but Howard was a really decent guy; in fact, he used to send me a Christmas card with a picture of his family every year. He was especially proud of his wife and six children, as well as his grandchildren.

    Of course, all of that happened when there was still some civility in American politics.

  52. dL

    Of course, all of that happened when there was still some civility in American politics.

    Of course, when you have something like the Department of Fatherland Security, I prefer the politics not to be so civil. The alternative in such a condition is usually really bad news…

  53. Darcy G Richardson

    “Of course, when you have something like the Department of Fatherland Security, I prefer the politics not to be so civil.” — dL

    Good point. Then again, one could argue that the lack of civility in our political discourse is precisely how we ended up with a Reality TV buffoon in the White House.

    For what it’s worth, Howard Phillips was strongly opposed to the surveillance state. In fact, Michael Peroutka, the candidate he recruited to run on the Constitution Party ticket in 2004 — arguably the most articulate antiwar voice in that election and the only presidential candidate who spoke at length and with passion about American atrocities in Iraq — was vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Homeland Security Act adopted the following year.

  54. Massimo

    I just found this article, mentioned today in Tyler Cowen’s blog.
    It is about the evolution of the porn industry in the San Fernando Valley. I admit that the relevance to the issue discussed here is minimal, just Baldwin statement that “Zionists” control most of the porn industry. It obviously shows that political considerations have no space in a very competitive industry like porn. But what really struck me is the infinite complexity of the demand and the sublime self-organizing of the supply. It is a fantastic example of Hayekian emerging order and Coasian theory of the firm. I believe that any person that knows how the market really works and how complex and ever-adapting is, is vaccinated against clumsy conspirational theories like Baldwin´s.

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jul/29/jon-ronson-bespoke-porn-nothing-is-too-weird-all-requests?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=237168&subid=3593784&CMP=GT_US_collection

  55. paulie

    That’s because he obviously meant Jews, not zionists. Do a search for “jews control porn” and you’ll see what I mean if you don’t already.

  56. paulie

    Israel’s naval and aerial blockade of Gaza puts them in a category alongside the United States in terms of being uniquely bad state actors. The willingness to use starvation, deprivation as a political control tool.

    There are regimes which do much worse things to people than blockades.

  57. dL

    Baldwin statement that “Zionists” control most of the porn industry.

    Baldwin limited his moral filth screed to Hollywood. So the “filth” in question would be limited to r-rated movies. Hell, maybe it also includes PG-13, I dunno…

  58. paulie

    I don’t know how anyone here can know what’s in Chuck Baldwin’s head.

    By reading his words in context.

    Words are not always “code” for something else.

    Of course not. But in this case they are.

    He’s an intelligent guy. I’m guessing he chose his words intentionally.

    Of course he did. That was my point.

  59. paulie

    Baldwin limited his moral filth screed to Hollywood.

    He did not. Read it again. I already quoted the comment about porn and sex slaves in the comments above, or see the original at Chuck Baldwin Live.

  60. paulie

    Of course, sometimes the accusation is true. But true or not, it’s still an example of the ad hominem fallacy, since it’s an attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

    It’s not ad hominem to point out that as Baldwin uses zionist here it is obvious he actually means Jews. For example, it is nonsensical to contend that “zionists” control porn and sex trafficking. It may or may not be conspiratorial nonsense or true to claim that people of a certain ethnicity or nationality do, but it’s utterly ridiculous to claim that it has anything to do with a political viewpoint.

  61. Massimo

    I totally agree with Paulie. Jews might be over represented in the porn industry, I don’t know but I don’t dispute it. Many reasons come to mind, maybe in their religion porn is less stigmatized, maybe there are a lot of non-believers compared to people raised as christians, maybe their immigration to the US had more young single men with no peer pressure from family and community, I have no idea. But from that to jump to the conclusion that it is a giant conspiration to weaken the morals of Christians is crazy. The fruit and vegetables wholesaling industry is dominated by Italians: what is it, a conspiration to induce Americans to consume, say, broccoli? With a very few exceptions, it is not the supply that creates the demand, it is the other way around, the demand is there, and the supply serves it.

  62. dL

    He did not. Read it again. I already quoted the comment about porn and sex slaves in the comments above, or see the original at Chuck Baldwin Live.

    okay, i read the original. i stand corrected…

  63. langa

    …political considerations have no space in a very competitive industry like porn.

    Well, I agree that Baldwin’s idea that there is some sort of conspiracy by “Zionists” (or Jews, or any other group) to use the porn industry as a tool to undermine morality/Christianity is ridiculous. However, it does not follow that “political considerations” have no influence over the type of porn that is produced. In fact, they most definitely do (at least when it comes to porn made for public consumption; I have little knowledge of the “custom porn” industry that the Guardian article discusses).

    I have been an avid porn viewer since the ’90s, and I have even spent some time working in the industry, and during those many years, I have seen a lot of changes. Originally, back in the ’90s, and even for the first several years of this century, porn was indeed relatively insulated from political pressure. Producers mainly tried to figure out what the fans wanted to see (a task that was obviously made much easier with the Internet), and then tried to deliver it. Sure, there were attempts by religious fundamentalists and radical, “sex negative” feminists to try to get porn banned, or at least heavily regulated, but those efforts were never able to get much traction, so for the most part, the people who made porn were free to ignore them, and that’s what they generally did. However, that all began to change about 10 years ago.

    There are a number of factors that contributed to the politicization of porn, but I think two stand out above the rest. One was the conviction of Max Hardcore, who subsequently served two years in federal prison for producing and distributing “obscene” material. (For those who don’t know, Max Hardcore was a very successful director/performer, who was also notorious for producing some of the most “politically incorrect” porn the world has ever seen. He made every effort to live up to his name.) This conviction had a “chilling” effect on the porn world, and led to an atmosphere in which producers were afraid to “push the envelope” as they had done in the past. For the first time, they began to worry about making porn that might “offend” people.

    The other key factor was the “infiltration” (for lack of a better term) of the porn industry by a significant number of radical feminists (of the “sex positive” variety). These feminists, many of whom started out as performers, eventually became directors and producers, and their political/cultural outlook had quite an
    influence on the kind of material they produced. Some of them, such as the people who run Kink.com (a BDSM-oriented fetish site that has become a major player in the industry) are quite open about the role that their ideology has had in shaping their productions. In many other cases, the influence of feminism is more subtle, but it’s definitely there, as can be easily seen by comparing porn made within the last 5 or 10 years to material that was made, say, 15 or 20 years ago.

    Of course, the question of whether these changes have made porn better or worse is a matter of taste, and thus subjective. But I think it is objectively true that they have played a major role in the “demise” of the industry. Many people within the industry like to blame “piracy” as the sole reason for the declining
    profitability of porn. However, this ignores the fact that much of the porn produced nowadays caters as much, if not more, to the tastes of the directors and performers, as to the tastes of the consumers. Is it any wonder that such material doesn’t sell as well?

    In any case, the claim that “political considerations” have no influence on porn production is simply false.

  64. langa

    Hmm, there seems to be a couple of formatting errors in that last comment. If someone with the ability to edit could fix them, I’d appreciate it.

  65. langa

    It’s not ad hominem to point out that as Baldwin uses zionist here it is obvious he actually means Jews. For example, it is nonsensical to contend that “zionists” control porn and sex trafficking. It may or may not be conspiratorial nonsense or true to claim that people of a certain ethnicity or nationality do, but it’s utterly ridiculous to claim that it has anything to do with a political viewpoint.

    This is a good example of the comment I made earlier, about people using Baldwin’s bad arguments as an excuse to dismiss his good ones. I explained my views on the porn industry in the previous comment, and as far as I can tell, the “sex trafficking” hysteria is basically just typical fearmongering — taking a small problem and making it out to be some monumental crisis, in order to convince people that they need government to “save” them. So, yes, I totally agree that those are bad arguments made by Baldwin.

    But what about the good points he makes? What about the “Israel First” nature of U.S. foreign policy? What about the double standard that excuses Saudi Arabia for the very same things that are used to portray other Muslim countries as dire threats? Perhaps most importantly, what about the terrible “anti-boycott” proposal, that would make a mockery out of basic libertarian principles, like property rights, freedom of association, and even freedom of speech? Are those arguments any less meritorious simply because the man voicing them may have some sinister motivation for doing so, or because he may have made other arguments that are wrong?

  66. Gene Berkman

    It is pretty clear, as Paulie and others have pointed out, that in the context of this article “Zionists” is a code-word for Jews. Disappointing and dangerous that Rev. Baldwin would let himself be associated with this nonsense.

    In 2008 he was a bit more balanced:http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin423.htm

    “America’s policies toward Israel have not been a blessing to her. They have been a curse. George W. Bush and most other Presidents during the last 40 years have treated Israel like the proverbial red-headed step-child.”

    “For example, America continues to furnish Israel’s enemies with three times more aid and assistance than it does Israel. Three times. Is that being a blessing to Israel? America gives unflinching and magnanimous support to militant Muslim governments such as Saudi Arabia. There is no nation in the Middle East that has harbored, trained, supplied, and supported more terrorists than Saudi Arabia. Is that being a blessing to Israel? In addition, every time an American President wants to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, he insists that Israel give up land for peace. President Bush is doing that very thing anew and afresh at this very moment. Is that being a blessing to Israel?”


    “Herein lies another problem: it is a heavy-handed, dictatorial, do-as-I-say foreign policy from Washington, D.C., that prevents Israel from defending itself. Before Tel Aviv can do anything, it must come hat-in-hand to Washington for permission. ”

    I won’t try to guess what motivated this column. Unless Rev. Baldwin repudiates these non-sensical anti-Semitic views I suggest conservatives and libertarians avoid dealing with him.

  67. Anthony Dlugos

    wow. When did the Constitution Party become anti-semitic with a strong conspiratorial bend?

  68. dL

    I have even spent some time working in the industry, and during those many years

    long dong langa…is that you? 🙂

  69. Massimo

    To Ianga

    Thanks for your mail, fascinating and knowledgeable. My question at this point would be: if the content has changed to reflect the view of the directors/producers at the expenses of those of the public, why somebody (like you for example, that are obviously intelligent enough and knows the industry) doesn’t open a study and start again producing what the market wants, maybe with the caveat of what you said happened to Max Hardcore? I do not think this industry has a lot of barriers to entry: fixed assets seem very limited, as far as I know there is no heavy regulation, and the Internet must have destroyed whatever power the channels might have had earlier..

    On a side, I am very curious to know what it is considered “non politically correct” in the porn industry. Could you give me the name of the typical movie of this Max Hardcore fellow (and maybe a hint about where to find it in the web)? Thanks a lot in advance

  70. langa

    …if the content has changed to reflect the view of the directors/producers at the expenses of those of the public, why somebody (like you for example, that are obviously intelligent enough and knows the industry) doesn’t open a study and start again producing what the market wants, maybe with the caveat of what you said happened to Max Hardcore?

    That’s a very good question. There are basically two reasons (or, in my case, three reasons, since I lack even the relatively small amount of capital necessary to be able to produce professional quality porn).

    One reason, as you mentioned, is the fear of legal repercussions, although the lack of porn prosecutions in recent years suggests such fears might be exaggerated. The second, and more important, reason is that the politicization of porn has brought with it a somewhat “politically correct” atmosphere, in which informal sanctions, such as shunning/boycotts, are used to restrict the kind of porn that is produced.

    For example, there is a porn studio based in Europe (in Prague, to be exact) called Legal Porno. A few years ago, when it was still relatively new, this studio began to produce material somewhat similar (but not as extreme) to the material that Max Hardcore used to produce. This proved to be very profitable for them, and they quickly became one of the most popular, albeit controversial, studios in Europe.

    Then, suddenly, almost out of the blue, they made an announcement that they would be “toning down” their material (and that they would be totally ceasing production of their “golden shower” material, which was what they had become most famous for. This announcement was met with extreme anger from their fan base, who flooded their forum with complaints, threats to cancel memberships, and so forth. Nevertheless, Legal Porno stood their ground, and to this day, over two years later, they have not gone back to their old style, despite frequent requests to do so.

    Now, perhaps the strangest part of all this is that they refused to give any reason for this change, except for a very cryptic statement about “the world not being ready” for certain kinds of porn. However, I have it on good authority that the reason was because they were facing boycotts from porn agents (especially American porn agents) who refused to allow their models to work for Legal Porno, unless they “toned down” their material. (In fact, Mark Spiegler, who is mentioned in that Guardian article, was reportedly one of the agents who was most vehement in his demands). This seems quite plausible to me, especially considering that shortly after the announcement, Legal Porno began to shoot a lot more scenes with American performers.

    You see, agents in porn are, in many ways, like pimps, in that they exercise far more control over their “clients” than do agents in other industries. So, if an agent, or especially a group of agents, demands that a studio change their material, or else that agency will boycott the studio, then the studio really has no choice but to comply.

  71. langa

    long dong langa…is that you?

    LOL… Unfortunately, I lack the, ahem, “physical attributes” necessary to be a performer.

  72. Massimo

    To langa

    So, it seems that there is a cartel among the agencies that provide the work-force. I still think that it is a great business opportunity, with the web you should be able to recruit actors by-passing the agencies, or even to create a “open-minded” agency and to serve other studios.

    What a pity I am old and married. If this happened 20 years ago I would already be in a plane to meet with you and work out together a start-up with your management and my capital. Breaking cartels is very satisfying and usually lucrative.

  73. Just Some Random Guy

    @ langa

    This is a good example of the comment I made earlier, about people using Baldwin’s bad arguments as an excuse to dismiss his good ones.

    Well, maybe Baldwin should avoid using those bad arguments, then.

    In fact, his frequent tendency to combine some decent arguments with completely outrageous and goofy claims has left me wondering if he isn’t actively trying to convince people of the opposite of what he says by making people dismiss the good points due to surrounding them with bad arguments.

  74. paulie

    In fact, his frequent tendency to combine some decent arguments with completely outrageous and goofy claims has left me wondering if he isn’t actively trying to convince people of the opposite of what he says by making people dismiss the good points due to surrounding them with bad arguments.

    I think it’s the other way around. He is trying to make his bad arguments less unacceptable to a greater number of people by surrounding them with other things that make a lot more sense.

  75. paulie

    This is a good example of the comment I made earlier, about people using Baldwin’s bad arguments as an excuse to dismiss his good ones. I explained my views on the porn industry in the previous comment, and as far as I can tell, the “sex trafficking” hysteria is basically just typical fearmongering — taking a small problem and making it out to be some monumental crisis, in order to convince people that they need government to “save” them. So, yes, I totally agree that those are bad arguments made by Baldwin.

    But what about the good points he makes? What about the “Israel First” nature of U.S. foreign policy? What about the double standard that excuses Saudi Arabia for the very same things that are used to portray other Muslim countries as dire threats? Perhaps most importantly, what about the terrible “anti-boycott” proposal, that would make a mockery out of basic libertarian principles, like property rights, freedom of association, and even freedom of speech? Are those arguments any less meritorious simply because the man voicing them may have some sinister motivation for doing so, or because he may have made other arguments that are wrong?

    I think we agree both on what his good points are and what his bad points are. At least in the examples you mentioned.

  76. paulie

    One was the conviction of Max Hardcore, who subsequently served two years in federal prison for producing and distributing “obscene” material.

    I think it was 4 years. I don’t feel like looking it up right now, I woke up in the middle of the night and hope to get back to sleep soon.

  77. paulie

    This conviction had a “chilling” effect on the porn world, and led to an atmosphere in which producers were afraid to “push the envelope” as they had done in the past. For the first time, they began to worry about making porn that might “offend” people.

    Depends on which ones. Facial Abuse/Ghetto Gaggers/Duke Skywalker are IMO more extreme than anything Max ever did. And they are sure as hell not politically correct in any way.

  78. paulie

    in many other cases, the influence of feminism is more subtle, but it’s definitely there, as can be easily seen by comparing porn made within the last 5 or 10 years to material that was made, say, 15 or 20 years ago.

    And yet James Deen’s career has not suffered in any way from the rape accusations. Max has been making new stuff, but the ridiculous fake cock makes it a bad joke. Tube sites have made more extreme stuff made overseas, including very realistic looking rape scenes, much more easily accessible, and without even the indignity of going into a porno store much less asking a store clerk to purchase, rent or preview such material. All at now, in most cases, no cost to the consumer.

    much of the porn produced nowadays caters as much, if not more, to the tastes of the directors and performers, as to the tastes of the consumers.

    The thing is I can find just about any kind of porn I want – no matter how politically incorrect – and pay nothing. I don’t even have to leave my motel room. Why pay? But if I am not paying, and most consumers get what they want for free, there is not much incentive to create new material – especially if it’s anything more expensive to make than a home video.

    In any case, the claim that “political considerations” have no influence on porn production is simply false.

    I should be more precise. Sexual politics have always had something to do with porn. But political movements such as Zionism, socialism, libertarianism, etc – I don’t think so. Yes, Nina Hartley is a socialist and John Stagliano is a libertarian, but that has little to do with who “controls” porn or as far as I can tell even with what kind of porn is made.

  79. Jill Pyeatt

    “Herein lies another problem: it is a heavy-handed, dictatorial, do-as-I-say foreign policy from Washington, D.C., that prevents Israel from defending itself. Before Tel Aviv can do anything, it must come hat-in-hand to Washington for permission. ”

    Can someone please explain this statement to me? I have never heard that Israel isn’t able to defend itself.

  80. dL

    Can someone please explain this statement to me? I have never heard that Israel isn’t able to defend itself.

    IIRC, that’s a C&P from Ron Paul circa 2008…

  81. Tony From Long Island

    Oh no . . . . “ugh” is the only thing that comes to mind upon reading this nonsense.

  82. Tony From Long Island

    Oh no . . . . “ugh” is the only thing that comes to mind upon reading this nonsense.

  83. Carmel

    “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., October 27, 1967, at a Civil Rights rally in Boston, Massachusetts

    This rant is mostly non-nonsensical, but what’s clear is that he hates Jews. Period.

  84. langa

    Well, maybe Baldwin should avoid using those bad arguments, then.

    I wish he would.

    However, I also wish people would realize that it’s OK to agree with someone about one thing, without thinking that means you have to agree with them about everything else, too.

  85. paulie

    I don’t think that. Perhaps it’s more of a natural tendency in these sorts of discussions to nitpick what you don’t agree with and spend no time, or at least less, on what you do agree with. Thanks for focusing some attention on that context. The obvious is often overlooked.

  86. paulie

    “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”

    Not always. There are legitimate criticisms of Zionism. There are Jewish critics of Zionism, even vociferous ones. There are specific criticisms of evangelical Christian Zionists. In this case, however, I will still say that Chuck Baldwin is using “zionists” as a code word or euphemism for Jews, based not on the fact that he is criticizing Zionism alone but rather specifically based on what he says in this article.

  87. Jill Pyeatt

    there is no heavy regulation

    Actually, there is a law that was passed many be 5 years ago that porn actors/actresses must wear condoms if the filming is done in Los Angeles. There was an attempt to make that law statewide last November, but, luckily, it failed.

  88. langa

    I think it was 4 years. I don’t feel like looking it up right now…

    I just looked it up. It was two and a half years (January ’09 to July ’11).

    Facial Abuse/Ghetto Gaggers/Duke Skywalker are IMO more extreme than anything Max ever did.

    Have you seen much of Max’s old uncut “Euro” stuff? It was far more extreme than anything in the “U.S.” versions. True, the people you mention are pretty hardcore, but they are a very small minority. 10 or 15 years ago, in addition to Max, you had studios like Extreme Associates (who also had different, “uncut” versions that were much more hardcore than the versions found in the stores), JM Productions, and more. Plus, some studios that are still around (like Diabolic, Red Light District, Zero Tolerance, etc.) produce much more “vanilla” stuff now than they did back then.

    Max has been making new stuff, but the ridiculous fake cock makes it a bad joke.

    I’m not sure what Max is doing nowadays. The last time I looked at his site, in addition to the new stuff you mentioned (which I agree is ridiculous), he has been putting out these “Director’s Cut” versions of his old stuff. They look better, since they’ve been remastered, but the content is bizarre. He seems to have edited them so that they are slightly more hardcore than his old “U.S.” stuff, but still don’t include most of the “Euro” stuff. I’m really not sure what he’s trying to accomplish.

    The thing is I can find just about any kind of porn I want – no matter how politically incorrect – and pay nothing. I don’t even have to leave my motel room. Why pay? But if I am not paying, and most consumers get what they want for free, there is not much incentive to create new material – especially if it’s anything more expensive to make than a home video.

    Well, I look at it from a slightly different perspective. I tend to treat tube sites, file sharing sites, etc. as “free samples.” That is to say, if I see a scene I like, I will go check out the pay site that it came from, and if I like what I see there, I will often purchase a one month membership. I do so for two reasons. First, I like to reward people for producing good material. Second, for a small fee (usually about $10-$15, and almost never more than $30), I can download all the scenes I like, without the hassle of trying to track them down on file sharing sites, torrents, etc. I don’t know how many people approach it the way I do, but there are definitely quite a few people who do.

    Sexual politics have always had something to do with porn.

    True, but I do think that nowadays, there is a lot more porn that is explicitly political. In particular, a porn scene has emerged in San Francisco (where Kink is located) that seems to be far more explicitly political than the stuff that has traditionally come out of L.A./Europe/Brazil, etc. But I agree with you that it’s not some conspiracy, as Baldwin seems to think. It’s just a different mindset among people who make porn.

  89. paulie

    Have you seen much of Max’s old uncut “Euro” stuff?

    Yes I have, and I still think Duke’s stuff is more out there. But yes, Max made some really extreme shit in his time. What he is making now…meh. Anyway…gotta go do stuff but I’ll read the rest later.

  90. Pingback: Speech Ban Imminent | Saturn's Repository

  91. paulie

    @pingback

    Saturn: In his recent column, “Zionism, Not Islam, Is America’s Biggest Threat,” former Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin accuses the Israeli lobby of threatening not only our rights, but our way of life. He identifies Zionism as “heart, mind, and pocketbook” behind such destructive forces as neoconservatism and globalism.

    p: Also, the force behind Hollywood, porn, and the global sex slave trade; but of course he is not using zionism as a code word for Jews, and anyone who thinks he is must be in favor of the congressional bill to ban boycotts of Israel, right?

    Saturn: I published Baldwin’s article at Independent Political Report, and apparently, according to a few comments there, Baldwin is now an “anti-Semite” for having written it.

    p: Yes, why would anyone think someone who keeps flogging this guy’s books about Jews
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II As Baldwin does is more than just anti-zionist? Come on.

    Saturn: Three years ago, I argued that a federal “hate speech” ban was on the horizon. I said it would be disguised as a “civil rights” bill and that anyone who opposed it would be deemed a “racist.” It appears I was somewhat off. A clear speech ban is before Congress right now and anyone who opposes it is being deemed not as a “racist” but as an “anti-Semite.”

    p: One problem with this absurd extrapolation is that I also oppose the congressional bill in question. The charge of antisemitism against Baldwin has nothing to do with his opposition to the congressional bill you refer to.

  92. Tony From Long Island

    Saturn:

    I published Baldwin’s article at Independent Political Report, and apparently, according to a few comments there, Baldwin is now an “anti-Semite” for having written it.

    It seems pretty apparent very quickly.

  93. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    A) ” Son of Liberty; No Apology ” by Marvin Clark Jr. documents the Sabbatian Frankists; a Jewish cult that works to totally destroy Christianity so that the Messiah may then come. They are the power behind many destructive events and trends within civilization. B) Dr. Henry Makow, a Jew, documents this phenomenon at his site. He states that the majority of Jews are unaware of the works of the Sabbatians but will be unfortunately blamed for their crimes. C) Criticism of the Sabbatians or Zionism does not mean that the critic ” hates Jews.” D) Many Jews follow the Talmud and totally despise Chtistianity; just like many commentators at this site.

  94. dL

    If X claims the United Government is setup by Satan as an instrument to brainwash the children into homosexuality, then that claim by X is rightfully mocked as batshit insane. If someone else Y makes a legitimate criticism of the injustice of US government actions, people who are not batshit insane do not offer that as evidence that if you agree w/ Y you this must therefore agree w/ X. Or if you disagree w/ X, you must likewise disagree w/ Y. That’s catatonically brain dead nonsense is exactly how cultural war politics works.

  95. JamesT

    I used to really respect Baldwin. But he’s lost his mind with this antisemitism garbage and its discrediting the previous 16 years of his writing. Its unfortunate and kind of sad.

  96. ers

    You know…..the anti-semitic or racist or homophobic cards get played way too much in this country. No doubt about that. The political Left sees to that daily.

    But when it comes to Chuck Baldwin, when people hit him with the anti-semitic card, I have to say it does fit. And it’s his fault; he is his own worse enemy. Go to his articles or FB page to see his 3 most covered topics:

    1 – Trump is bad and not perfect like Chuck Baldwin
    2 – Israel/Zionism is bad.
    3 – Israel, Israel, Israel

    Pretty sad what Chuck has devolved into. He used to be more sensible in his writings, but he has such a strange, embittered spirit to his writings and topics anymore. Pray for Chuck.

  97. paulie

    Several comments removed after the last comment in this thread, per IPR policies. The first one was an impersonated comment that ridiculed someone’s physical appearance, both of which are against our comment policies. As previously discussed in IPR moderation policy related threads, subsequent comments that made no sense without reference to the original trashed comment and all conversations rising out of them were also removed.

  98. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Paulie – The comment from Andy ( Thanks Andy ) in response to the sickness of Quirk and in my defense is removed but not that of Quirk.

    Hence there is the surface policy and then the real policy.

  99. dL

    Hence there is the surface policy and then the real policy.

    No, there’s only one policy. However, it’s not quite a real policy. A real policy would allow me to catch the “impersonator” red -handed and then ban him. And I would catch him.

  100. paulie

    Don,

    There’s no policy against asking whether you still live with your mother. It is a fact that you were doing so as of the last time we asked. If someone wants to read something into that that is up to them, but I thought your explanation of it was perfectly fine. Lots of people live with aging relatives – so what?

    The comment “in your defense” was not in your defense, and said nothing about you. It was a personal attack on Cody’s wife based on age and appearance, which in no way shape or form is a defense of you or a legitimate comment for IPR discussions. Furthermore it was posted by someone who was pretending to be one of the regular participants here in an attempt to deceive the readers as to who posted it, which would all by itself be enough to remove it even if the comment’s contents did not violate any other IPR policy, although they did.

    Hope that helps.

  101. paulie

    No, there’s only one policy. However, it’s not quite a real policy. A real policy would allow me to catch the “impersonator” red -handed and then ban him. And I would catch him.

    What would you like to have me or Warren do to implement that?

  102. dL

    What would you like to have me or Warren do to implement that?

    It would likely entail some custom programming to implement, probably as a wordpress plugin augmentation to the current commenting system. On shallow inspection, I haven’t found anything on the plugin marketplace that does what what would need to be done. So, I would have to code it.

  103. From Der Sidelines

    >Don’t be naive. Baldwin is using “zionist” as a euphemism for “Jew.”

    Don’t be naive. Zionist =/= Jew.

    Cue Bruce Cohen and his ignorant apoligist rants in 3..2..1..

  104. paulie

    Of course it doesn’t equal Jew. But as Baldwin is using it here, it does, for reasons discussed above. Cohen as far as I can remember has not posted here in years.

  105. Cody Quirk

    Yep. To Don, the ends justify the means.

    Don, you threw out the teachings of Jesus Christ a long time ago.

Leave a Reply

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