IPR Exclusive: Chuck Baldwin makes his case to disgruntled libertarians

In an interview earlier today, Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin made his case to Libertarians unhappy with Bob Barr as their nominee.

“I understand that some libertarians do not share my conviction that life begins at conception and that we need to protect it,” said Baldwin. “I understand that some don’t share our concerns on the moral issues, but I’ll say this to all the Libertarians and independents: If you believe that a secure border is critical to our nation’s survival, then I’m the only candidate for president in 2008 you can vote for.”

Baldwin continued: “I’m also the guy that has historically stood against the Patriot Act, from the beginning. I will never allow eavesdropping on private citizens without a court order. I’m going to stop the New World Order, the NAFTA Superhighway. I really believe that NAFTA and GATT and WTO and all those so-called free trade deals have torn our country apart.”

Gay Rights, Abortion, and Church-State

When asked if the federal government should pass laws restricting homosexual activity, Baldwin addressed his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment: “I have always opposed the constitutional amendment process for the purpose of defining marriage. I know this puts me at odds with some of my evangelical brethren.”

Baldwin said he does, however, support the Defense of Marriage Act: “Obviously I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act properly recognizes that God-ordained institution.”

Earlier, IPR reported that Baldwin opposed DOMA and that he also opposed a national abortion ban. It appears we were wrong on both counts.

Baldwin says he supports Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which would define an unborn child as being a “person under the laws of the country.” According to Baldwin, this act would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and “end abortion on demand.”

But what about abortion that’s not “on demand?”

When asked what he would do as president if a state passed “permissive abortion laws,” he said that the Sanctity of Life Act would “settle the matter.”

On the proper role for religion in government, Baldwin said we are a “nation under God,” and as such, we have a “duty to our Creator” to acknowledge this fact. At the same time, unprompted, Baldwin said he supports the religious freedom of non-Christians and atheists. He said how someone worships God — or if they don’t at all — is “none of the federal government’s business, quite frankly.”

It’s important to note that Baldwin was not asked a question about church-state or religion, but offered the above in his general comments.

Sound Money and Free Trade

When asked about the Federal Reserve, Baldwin said: “I think it’s important that we return to sound money. I think that all the problems we’re facing economically are directly related to the Federal Reserve System and the fiat-money supply.” He also said that as president, he would make Ron Paul Secretary of the Treasury.

On trade, Baldwin says doesn’t think his position is “out of sync” with Ron Paul’s and that “maybe some libertarians don’t understand Ron Paul’s position.” Baldwin says he’s spoken with Ron Paul and that Paul is not opposed to tariffs, but only protective tariffs.

Baldwin says he would cut spending, repeal the income tax, and replace it with a 10% general tariff on all imports. He stressed that this would not be a “protective tariff.”

When specifically asked if he would support retaliatory tariffs or tariffs set at different rates based on country of origin, Baldwin said “I would support an across-the-board 10% general tariff on all imports.”

Immigration and Border Security

Baldwin was asked, “What should be the goal of immigration policy? Should it be strictly a national security matter or are their cultural and economic objectives? How does the government know how many immigrants is the right number of immigrants to let in?”

His response: “We’re the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration. We allow more legal immigrants into our country than all the rest of the world’s countries combined. Over one million immigrants a year migrate to this country, lawfully, including my chief of staff who came from Zimbabwe, Africa. I certainly support the immigration process, and it’s a very generous one, and it’s a very fair one.”

Baldwin stressed border security. He said we have open borders at both ends of our country and that the Canadian border might be more problematic than the Mexican border. “It is absolutely ludicrous that we would not secure our borders.”

But is it strictly a national security issue? Or are there economic and cultural concerns as well?

When asked “should all peaceable immigrants who come here to work be allowed in, or should there be quotas?” Baldwin said, “When you say ‘all,’ I’m not sure I understand the question.” He said there must be a “lawful process” to “assimilate immigrants into our culture.” He said he didn’t think we could bring in “everybody, unlimited numbers of people” without limits set by government officials.

IPR Reader Questions

“I do not support the regulation of the Internet by the federal government,” Baldwin said, in response to being told he received an “F” rating from a gambling-rights group, while Ron Paul received an A+.

When asked about specific legislation and if he specifically opposed government regulation of the Internet as it pertained to online gambling, he said, “No, what I said was I haven’t seen that particular bill. I’d have to look at it.”

Baldwin said he would be happy to debate leading third-party candidates such as Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney, and that he is “looking forward to debating John McCain and Barack Obama, as well.” When asked if he had a strategy to gain entry into the major presidential debates, Baldwin said he was “very hopeful” that his campaign would show the necessary credibility to the mainstream media that they would not be able to keep him out.

When asked about whether D.C. should be governed locally — and asked specifically about gay adoption — Baldwin said: “Under the Constitution, the District of Columbia is under the authority of the Congress, and I would have no desire to change that.”

Baldwin said figures he admired and would attempt to emulate as president included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (“even though I would not agree with all of his spiritual views”), Patrick Henry, John Jay, and John Adams. Among modern figures, Baldwin said Ron Paul was one of his heroes.

When asked if he saw any movement among conservative Christians from default support of militarism to a more traditional conservative foreign policy, Baldwin said that the movement will definitely occur when he becomes president. “I’m going to put a stop to it,” Baldwin said, referring to foreign intervention. “As president, I would not send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a declaration of war from Congress — that is absolutely essential to our country’s future.” Baldwin says he’s on record as opposing the War in Iraq from the beginning, and as president, he will put in place a plan to get troops out of Iraq as “expeditiously and as safely as possible.”

Baldwin says he believes in the “founding fathers’ foreign policy that we should trade with all and have entangling alliances with none.” He also said he’s opposed to foreign aid.

The interview was conducted over the phone and recorded. A link to the audio will be provided as soon as possible.

90 thoughts on “IPR Exclusive: Chuck Baldwin makes his case to disgruntled libertarians

  1. RedPhillips

    Thanks for asking my question although he didn’t really answer it. Sounds like he didn’t quite understand the question. I was asking more for his impressions than his policy position.

  2. G.E. Post author

    Yes, he quite literally did not understand your question. I asked your question, word-for-word, and he asked me to ask it again “more plainly.” 🙂 You can hear for yourself when I post the audio.

  3. G.E. Post author

    I dropped the ball on some follow-ups. I should have asked:

    Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to define marriage, as it does in the Defense of Marriage Act?

    Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to define “life,” as the Sanctity of Life Act seeks to do?

    If a state legalized abortion, would President Baldwin send federal troops in to intervene?

    I should have been more dogged on the tariff question: What if the 10% general tariff caused imports to drop, revenues to decline, trade to slow, and the economy to falter? How do you know that 10% is the right rate?

    Oh well.

  4. Deran

    Is there are a large religious conservative element in the LP? I guess I’ve never thought of the LP as being a hot bed of the religious right?

  5. G.E. Post author

    “Is there are a large religious conservative element in the LP?”

    No.

    But many libertarians are willing to look beyond a candidate’s personal views and focus on how he would theoretically govern.

    I am an atheist, and I am still considering voting for Chuck Baldwin as the least-bad option on the ballot.

  6. G.E. Post author

    And notice I said “theoretically” govern and NOT “theocratically” govern. 🙂

  7. G.E. Post author

    Jason – Jay/Knapp would be my #1 choice IF I knew my vote would be counted. There is literally no point in casting a write-in vote that is not counted. Jay/Knapp need to make getting “official write-in” status a priority in states where there is no hope of actual ballot status.

  8. NewFederalist

    Thanks IPR for doing this interview! It is very enlightening. I have always considered myself a constitutional libertarian or a libertarian constitutionalist. Perhaps if you do an interview with Bob Barr I can finally figure out which it is. Well done!

  9. Jason_Gatties

    From what I understand, steps have already been taken or about to be taken, to ensure Jay’s write in votes would count.

    Take that with a grain of salt though. I ran as an official write in candidate for State Rep 4 years ago and NONE of my votes counted, including the vote I cast for myself. (I believe I should have had at least 20 votes)

  10. G.E. Post author

    Yes, he did not answer it. When you hear the audio, you can judge for yourself whether he was being evasive. My estimation is that he was.

  11. paulie cannoli

    If you believe that a secure border is critical to our nation’s survival, then I’m the only candidate for president in 2008 you can vote for.

    What if I don’t? And how does Barr’s position fall short of that if I did?

  12. RedPhillips

    After sitting through two 4th of July themed Church services, one at my parent’s church on the 29th and one yesterday at my church, I am not very hopeful that things are changing. I suspect, one to one, many would express skepticism about the Iraq War, but a generalized “we need a big military to make us safer” attitude at the minimum still prevails. Of course there are still those who think we should wage a global war to expand democracy and those who think it is our moral duty to protect Israel. It would help greatly, IMO, if some prominent conservative evangelical leaders, not identifiably liberal or moderate, came out for non-interventionism.

  13. G.E. Post author

    Paulie — Yeah, I think Baldwin doesn’t really understand libertarians. I could have made a much better pitch for him than he did for himself. He was basically like, “I know some of you don’t agree with me on this one issue, and others don’t agree with me on another issue, but hear this: I support a third issue that the majority of you don’t agree with and that your presidential candidate essentially agrees with me on.”

    WORST SALES PITCH EVER.

    He should have said: “I’m not in the CIA. I am firmly and unashamedly anti-war. I oppose the Federal Reserve System and the Fair Tax. You can trust me — my views have been consistent for a long time. I supported and endorsed Ron Paul. And I want to return government to its constitutional size, not make minor cuts here and there in the executive office of the president. What a fucking joke!”

    Of course, that last line probably would never slip past the good pastor’s lips, but he would be justified.

  14. TheEngineer

    “Yes, he did not answer it. When you hear the audio, you can judge for yourself whether he was being evasive. My estimation is that he was.”

    Thanks. I look forward to hearing the audio. I was surprised that Baldwin didn’t answer my question on online poker, given that his campaign contacted me and asked me to submit the question in the first place!

  15. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I told you Baldwin wasnt really a protectionist,but believed in a revenue tarriff =)

    Also–TheEngineer, I think he answered the question adequately–He doesnt support Federal control or tampering with ANY of the internet,this includes gambling and pornography.
    “I do not support the regulation of the Internet by the federal government,”

  16. G.E. Post author

    Trent – Not really convinced. His statements on trade are contradictory and rather than saying, “I do not support the idea of retaliatory tariffs or tariff rates varying by country of origin,” he simply repeated what he had already stated. That might have been good enough, I guess, but he would not specifically say he did NOT favor higher tariffs on Chinese goods, etc.

    He also refused to clearly affirm that online gambling should not be regulated. You’ll have to listen to the audio to hear what I mean. I posed the question back to him saying, “So you’re saying that you do not support federal regulation and Internet gambling,” and he said, “No, that’s not what I said…”

    Finally, I really wish I would have been quicker on my toes with the following follow-up questions:

    Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to define marriage, as it does in the Defense of Marriage Act?

    Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to define “life,” as the Sanctity of Life Act seeks to do?

    If a state legalized abortion, would President Baldwin send federal troops in to intervene?

  17. paulie cannoli

    I understand that some don’t share our concerns on the moral issues

    Some libertarians do, and yet still realize that big government is not the way to address such concerns.

  18. paulie cannoli

    Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to limit the number of immigrants?

  19. paulie cannoli

    When asked about whether D.C. should be governed locally — and asked specifically about gay adoption — Baldwin said: “Under the Constitution, the District of Columbia is under the authority of the Congress, and I would have no desire to change that.”

    So, what about gay adoption, civil unions, drug laws, laws against certain sexual acts between consenting adults, etc., in DC?

  20. Arthur Torrey

    I think there are enough areas where I consider Baldwin problematic that I don’t think I could vote for him, but I do think he sounds better than Barr…

    At least he seems a bit more honest and consistent.

    ART

  21. paulie cannoli

    Is there are a large religious conservative element in the LP? I guess I’ve never thought of the LP as being a hot bed of the religious right?

    There are quite a few fundamentalist Christians who are LP. Even among radical libertarians.

    That might not be the case as much up north.

  22. paulie cannoli

    I like Chuck Baldwin. That being said, there are too many issues that I clash with him on.

    I’m writing in Jay/Knapp

    Do you have a slate of electors? Have Jay/Knapp registered their intent to have their write-in votes counted with your state (most states require this to count write in votes)? Does your state use voting devices that count write in votes? Do they have to have a specially shaped arrow or specific mark to make them valid? Are write-in votes counted separately by candidate?

    ETC

  23. paulie cannoli

    And notice I said “theoretically” govern and NOT “theocratically” govern.

    Not too sure there is a difference in this case.

  24. paulie cannoli

    Perhaps if you do an interview with Bob Barr I can finally figure out which it is. Well done!

    Definitely well done. We should invite Barr, along with McKinney and Nader. If some say no or don’t respond, see if they’ll change their minds after we get the other(s).

  25. paulie cannoli

    BTW I am going to the Green convention (probably leaving tomorrow). Folks, let me know if you have specific questions for Cynthia McKinney if I get a chance to ask her. For that matter, you can also ask questions of GP also-rans – I may be more likely to get a chance to sit down with them.

    After I quit posting on here you can reach me at 415.690.6352

  26. paulie cannoli

    I think there are enough areas where I consider Baldwin problematic that I don’t think I could vote for him

    Same thought here. But it’s also a matter of which areas, since I’m still considering McKinney, and she is certainly not libertarian.

  27. Tim in Ohio

    Is there are a large religious conservative element in the LP? I guess I’ve never thought of the LP as being a hot bed of the religious right?

    I am a Christian Libertarian and know several others as well. I think alot of Christians would agree that just because we disagree with something does not mean its any of the State’s business.

  28. Trent Hill

    I appreciate that Baldwin didnt make any concessions in an effort to appear more libertarian than he really is. He is honest and has integrity, and I wouldnt want him to mince his words to appeal to anyone specific. With that said, I couldve done better with this. There were constitutionalist answers to all of these questions that would satisfy both libertarians and conservative constitutionalists.

    Again ill say–Baldwin is more libertarian than Barr. His answer in favor of a revenue tarriff and against Federal regulation of online gambling (or at least, of any specific bill put forth thus far) puts him solidly in the libertarian-constitutionalist quadrant, and his support for DOMA, Pro-life issues, and immigration do not seperate him from Barr at all. However, Baldwin is better on Sound Money, Foreign Policy, and the UN and you can trust whatever it is he says.

  29. TheEngineer

    “…against Federal regulation of online gambling (or at least, of any specific bill put forth thus far) puts him solidly in the libertarian-constitutionalist quadrant”

    A libertarian-constitutionalist would automatically say “no federal regulation or interference of online gaming, period”. It should have been a simple statement of principle. Again, he didn’t say he’s against federal online gaming regulations (or, more precisely, he said it as a generality, but took it back when asked a more specific question). GE clarified it pretty well earlier, I thought.

  30. TheOriginalAndy

    “Same thought here. But it’s also a matter of which areas, since I’m still considering McKinney, and she is certainly not libertarian.”

    I like McKinney for a Green/leftist, but I’d vote for Baldwin over her.

    I’ve voted for the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in every election since I started voting, but this year I’m contemplating either writing in Ron Paul, voting for Chuck Baldwin, or not voting in the Presidential race.

  31. paulie cannoli

    Writing in Ron Paul is pretty stupid. Your vote would not be counted.

  32. darren

    Is this an appeal to Libertarians or to Ron Paul supporters? The two are not the same, but as far as I know the latter don’t visit this site.

  33. darren

    paulie – why would a write-in for Jay be any better than a write-in for Paul? If you want your protest vote to be noticed, Barr is the only option because he’s the only one the media will report. If you want to vote for someone who shares all of your principles, then you should write in your own name. Anything else is a compromise.

  34. paulie cannoli


    Is this an appeal to Libertarians or to Ron Paul supporters? The two are not the same, but as far as I know the latter don’t visit this site.

    I’m fairly sure many of the people here were/are Ron Paul supporters.

    paulie – why would a write-in for Jay be any better than a write-in for Paul?

    It wouldn’t, which is why that is not option for me. I would only consider voting for Jay if I end up voting in a state where he is listed on the ballot. Otherwise it is like urinating in the dark in my shorts.

    Although, since unlike Ron Paul, Jay wants his votes to count, he may register as an official write in candidate with a slate of electors – that may be a sufficient difference.


    If you want your protest vote to be noticed, Barr is the only option because he’s the only one the media will report. If you want to vote for someone who shares all of your principles, then you should write in your own name. Anything else is a compromise.

    I’ll see how it shapes up; who will or won’t be reported may (or ma not) surprise you.

    My own name would not be counted. I won’t be writing it in. I’m also not constitutionally qualified.

  35. darren

    Immigration, DOMA, abortion, NAFTA superhighway, and the gold standard are issues microtarged to Paul supporters. All he needed to throw in was a new commission on 9/11. If he were trying to hook Libertarians specifically he would, as Paulie pointed out, focus on his anti-war and pro-civil liberty credentials. The Ron Paul supporters that were never Libertarians won’t see this interview, and the Libertarian purists that frequent IPR are not being spoken to. Of course, if you are a Libertarian who doesn’t mind the occasional apostasies of Ron Paul, as I am, then you should have no problem supporting his friend and similarly imperfect Libertarian Bob Barr.

  36. Trent Hill

    darren,

    The article was covered in the manner it was becasue IPR is a hotbed of libertarians who oppose Barr. I dont think MOST of those libertarians are very likely to support Baldwin–as most of them oppose Barr because of his support for DOMA/pro-life and such. Only the Rockwellian libertarians and what I call “Alex Jones Libertarians”–who dont trust CIA-Bob-Barr.

  37. G.E. Post author

    “I appreciate that Baldwin didnt make any concessions in an effort to appear more libertarian than he really is. He is honest and has integrity…”

    Agreed. But there would have been no harm in making a stronger pitch, as you have conceded.

    Whatever. We are a small piece of the electorate in the grand scheme, but fairly large in comparison to what CP candidates have received in the past.

  38. G.E. Post author

    darren – I was congressional district coordinator for Ron Paul. Comparing that great man, a disciple of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, to the imbecile the LP nominated for president would be blasphemy if I viewed Ron Paul as religiously as some of his supporters do (and I nearly do).

    Ron Paul is wrong on immigration. He’s wrong on DOMA.

    That’s it.

    The rest of his platform and philosophy are 100% libertarian. He would never make an idiotic statement like Barr made in reference to Jesse Helms help bringing down Communism!

  39. G.E. Post author

    Trent – I’ve heard virtually no opposition to Barr based on his pro-life stance, which is actually much more libertarian (and constitutionalist) than Baldwin’s stance.

  40. G.E. Post author

    One more thing for darren — I should also point out that it was MARY RUWART who is a friend and supporter of Ron Paul, and likewise — not CIA man Bob Barr who refused to endorse Paul.

    Ron Paul is a libertarian purist who is wrong on DOMA and has abandoned his previously libertarian immigration views based on the growth of the welfare state (no excuse).

    Bob Barr is a guy who’s a little bit better than John McCain.

  41. Trent Hill

    “Ron Paul is wrong on immigration. He’s wrong on DOMA.”

    I think immigration should be left out of that. Iv heard even scholars at the Mises institute make great arguements for secure borders.

  42. G.E. Post author

    Trent – Ron Paul takes things beyond national defense and uses the existence of the welfare state as an excuse to deny immigrants entry. I have great respect for Ron Paul and agree with him 99% of the time, but this is a bad argument.

  43. sunshinebatman

    GE, Barr asked Ron Paul to run as the LP candidate back in December. How is that not an endorsement? WTF?

  44. G.E. Post author

    To be fair, though, I guess Barr probably couldn’t endorse Paul since Barr was on the LNC. ??

  45. paulie cannoli

    GE, Barr asked Ron Paul to run as the LP candidate back in December.

    No, he asked him to run for the nomination.

    To be fair, though, I guess Barr probably couldn’t endorse Paul since Barr was on the LNC.

    I think he could have endorsed him for the Republican nomination. I could be wrong.

  46. TheOriginalAndy

    “paulie cannoli // Jul 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Writing in Ron Paul is pretty stupid. Your vote would not be counted.”

    Some states do count write in votes. Also, if I was writing in Ron Paul I’d just be doing it to send a message.

    “paulie cannoli // Jul 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Jay, McKinney, Barr, or no vote.”

    I’m suprised to see you say that you’d consider voting for Barr.

    Here’s a couple of reasons to consider Baldwin over Barr.

    Barr favors eliminating the income tax and replacing it with the FairTax. Baldwin favors eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

    I’ve heard that Baldwin supports a real investigation into 9/11. Barr has avoided the subject.

    I suppose that I should put Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party into consideration of a possible vote this November. However, he won’t be on the ballot in many states and if I’m going to do a write in vote I might as well do it for Ron Paul.

  47. paulie cannoli

    Some states do count write in votes.

    There are lots of rules that apply – here are just a small set of them, and note that they may apply in even more states than the chart shows.

    http://mfoster.com/misc/write-in_rules_2008.html

    I’m suprised to see you say that you’d consider voting for Barr.

    Of course I’d consider it. There won’t be many choices. The fact that Barr has some issues I strongly disagree with us does not mean that he is necessarily worse than the other choices. But, there’s also a high likelihood I won’t vote.

    Barr favors eliminating the income tax and replacing it with the FairTax. Baldwin favors eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

    No, he favors replacing it with a 10% tariff. When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.

    Baldwin is also much too coercively socially conservative and anti-immigration for me.

  48. aynrkey

    From a libertarian perspective, Baldwin is certainly far from ideal. He’s also certainly better than McBama. So how does he compare vis-a-vis Barr, that is the question.

    Based only on comments Barr made after leaving congress, and based on contributions made only after entering the campaign, Barr is certainly better than Baldwin. Based on the entire record and the doubts some still have about Barr’s authenticity of libertarianism, Baldwin does look better than before.

    “Yeah, he’s only partway there, but the part he has he really is there!” versus “yeah he’s most of the way there but is he really there?”

  49. TheOriginalAndy

    “No, he favors replacing it with a 10% tariff. When goods don’t cross borders, armies will. ”

    It is not as though we don’t already have tarriffs.

    I’m not exactly sure where tarriff rates are set at the moment but I think that in some cases right now tarriffs are currently that much or higher.

    Baldwin’s 10% tarriff combined with eliminating the income tax, Social Security taxes, and the Federal Reserve would represent a HUGE net tax cut.

    So your complaint here is not valid.

    “Baldwin is also much too coercively socially conservative and anti-immigration for me.”

    Baldwin is offering a much larger net cut in the size of government compared to McKinney.

    Also, while Baldwin opposes illegal immigration, I have not seen him say anything about cutting off legal immigration.

    I think that you are probably closer to Baldwin than you are to McKinney but you don’t want to admit it because you don’t like the image of conservatives. Your response strikes me as style over substance.

  50. paulie cannoli

    There’s nothing approaching a 10% across the board tariff at present. So saying he’d replace current taxes with nothing is false.

    While it is a lower rate than current taxes, it’s easier to pass a new tax than getting rid of old ones.

    I haven’t seen Baldwin say anything about doing away with immigration quotas to make immigration legal, so obviously he wants to keep a lot of illegal. He’s called the current process fair and generous, which is ridiculous.

    I don’t have time for a detailed analysis right now – about to leave for Chicago.

  51. TheOriginalAndy

    “paulie cannoli // Jul 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    There’s nothing approaching a 10% across the board tariff at present. So saying he’d replace current taxes with nothing is false.

    While it is a lower rate than current taxes, it’s easier to pass a new tax than getting rid of old ones.”

    I’m not so sure that you are correct about that, but even if you are that still represents a big cut in government as compared to what McKinney and the Greens are offering.

    What taxes are the Greens offering to wipe out or reduce?

    “I haven’t seen Baldwin say anything about doing away with immigration quotas to make immigration legal, so obviously he wants to keep a lot of illegal. He’s called the current process fair and generous, which is ridiculous. ”

    The current process still has LOTS of legal immigrants.

    Going back into history during the largest “great waves” of immigrations the peak numbers were only around 250,000 people per year. Today, there are 1-2 million legal immigrants per year.

    Do the Greens want to shut down the Federal Reserve? Do the Greens want to repeal gun control laws? Do the Greens want to get out of the United Nations? Do the Greens want to end the welfare state?

    While the Greens have few redeaming qualities, going issue for issue I’d give the edge to Baldwin and the Constitution Party.

  52. G.E. Post author

    Andy – I asked Baldwin “how does the government know how many immigrants to let in?”

    He totally did not understand the question. And I don’t mean he didn’t hear me right, I mean the notion of a free economy without centrally planned immigration quotas was absolutely foreign to his ears. He also believes, wrongly, that if we allowed people to come here — absent the welfare state — that there would be an unmanageable number of them coming here to work for jobs that did not exist…. WHY? For one, they would create their own jobs. For two, they would not come if they had no place to live — i.e. if rents were too high based on the scarcity of vacancies caused by the influx.

    Baldwin seems to, scratch that, Baldwin does not understand the self-correcting nature of free markets. He doesn’t seem to understand the folly of central planning — i.e. his arbitrary 10% tariff and his centrally planned immigration quotas.

    I’m not saying the guy is unredeemable or not worth voting for. I’m just pointing out his flaws for the sake of balance.

  53. Trent Hill

    Also, having just reviewed DOMA—Im glad Baldwin is for it. GE, read it.

  54. G.E. Post author

    Rather than reading the repugnant, extra-constitutional, and statist Act, how about you just tell me what’s so good about it?

  55. G.E. Post author

    The federal government was created by the states as an agent of the states. What business does it have “defending” marriage?

  56. sunshinebatman

    Yeah, why would you actually read something before building a website largely around your blind hatred for same? That would be nutz!!

  57. G.E. Post author

    I wasn’t aware that I built a Web site around hatred of DOMA. Why? Because I didn’t, troll. I worked for Ron Paul who, unfortunately, supports DOMA. This site was built so that there would continue to be a site covering third-party news, and not just regurgitating Barr and LP press releases.

  58. José C

    “We’re the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration.”

    I know Chuck Baldwin did not mean it in this context but we are very, very, very generous . . .

    Taxpayer supported low income housing, free healthcare, free libraries, free education, low income electric service, low income natural gas service, low income water service, low income phone service, food stamps, retirement, free entertainment, transportation, . . .

    Yes, we are the most generous nation in the world. And that is an understatement.

  59. Trent Hill

    GE,

    This is why I encouraged you to READ the Act. How do you know it is extra-constitutional or repugnant? It is, in point of fact, federalist. It also ISNT anti-gay marriage.
    The second part of the Act defines “marriage” and “spouse” for use by the Federal government. Their is notihng overly-inflammatory about this. Congress could pass a bill tomorrow that said, “‘Gay marriage’ shall be defined as a marriage between two people of the same sex. ” and it would not conflict at ALL with DOMA.

    “`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

    `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.”

    I’ll quote Ron Paul now:
    “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.”

    The second part, the definition, is used only in the context of how to use (or not use) the Full Faith and Credit Clause on the issue. As you well know, I dont oppose the voluntary association of any two individuals, black and white, male and male, tyrannasourous-cyborg and Irish. But when the federal government attempts to redefine words like “marriage”, it becomes an attempt at social engineering,which is a dangerous concept to the entire idea of liberty. I’ll repeat again–I dont want government involved in marriage at ANY level. But while it is, government should not be altering the institution as a social engineering practice.

  60. sunshinebatman

    Hey goofball, from what I understand, you made this site because the site you used to be on was taken over by friends of Barr. Goofy, uninformed rants vs Barr have been a central facet of this site and an animating raison d’etre. The admission that you haven’t even read the Barr legislation you wave about like a bloody flag is just too, too . . . something.

  61. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Take a look at Justin Raimondo’s new article at TakiMag.
    http://www.takimag.com/site/article/gay_marriage_sucks/

    Keep in mind that Raimondo was a student of Rothbard, but also supported Buchanan in 92,96,and 00. Look at the mid-part of the article where Raimondo suggests that NO REAL LIBERTARIAN should wish for the state to extend its control over “the very real gay marriages that already happen in San Francisco”. Raimondo uses the same notion I use. The state should not be involved in the issue. While it is involved, we should seek to do 2 things. 1.)Minimize state involvement 2.)Not allow the State to engage in social engineering, either pro or anti gay.

  62. G.E. Post author

    sunshinetroll – Have you read the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act?

    I haven’t.

    Do you think you have to read an Act to know that it’s bad? That’s absurd.

    The news coverage at this site is fair and balanced and only deranged Barr lovers could possibly contest that. Of course, anyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job and still supports a CIA asset who won’t even appear at the Libertarians for Justice event is an obvious moron.

  63. sunshinebatman

    Yes, I’m a reader. It’s a blessing, it’s a curse. I actually like to know wtf I’m talking about.

  64. G.E. Post author

    Have you read the Federal Reserve Act? How about NAFTA? The Internal Revenue Code?

    I forbid you to speak out against any of them until you’ve read them all.

    I’m pretty sure you could spend 24 hours the day, the rest of your life, and not read all of the bad laws in this country.

  65. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Leave batman alone–he’s a troll.
    And read the Raimondo article posted above. Let me know what you think!

  66. citizen1

    The best solution to the marriage issue constitutionally speaking is to get the government out of the business of sanctioning marriage.Marriage is a religious institution. I believe that gay marriage is an oxymoron and is wrong but that it is not the governments job to regulate it. Churches however should be free to speak out against it as vehemently as they want.

  67. G.E. Post author

    “I believe that gay marriage is an oxymoron and is wrong but that it is not the governments job to regulate it.”

    Although I do not agree with your oxymoronic statement, I do appreciate your sentiment. I don’t really have an opinion on what constitutes a “marriage,” but I don’t want any definition imposed on anyone against their will — not against a gay couple, nor a polygamous triumvirate, nor a pious Christian family. The gay marriage battle is about the Secular Left and the Religious Right trying to impose their views on their opponents and everyone left in the middle.

  68. Trent Hill

    GE,

    We all agree. Removing marriage from the sphere of government control should be priority number one!

    Now isnt it fun when we agree?

  69. G.E. Post author

    Let me amend my statement #75: I think marriage is whatever two or more people agree for it to be, and that government cannot add or take away from the validity of that agreement in the eyes of the parties involved, or any who agree to accept the union as a marriage. Anyone who disagrees should be free to as well.

  70. Joseph Marzullo

    Andy,

    why spreading your lies? Bob Barr favors the flat tax, but he said he would consider the FairTax WITHOUT the rebate part, just that tax. He saidwe need to repeal the 16th amendment before implementing a new tax system.

    Chuck Baldwin is a protectionist.

  71. hogarth

    “Bob Barr favors the flat tax, but he said he would consider the FairTax WITHOUT the rebate part, just that tax.”

    Link, please?

  72. paulie cannoli

    Andy: very briefly, to summarize: it’s not just the number of issues, it’s how they are weighted.

  73. paulie cannoli

    Andy – your comparison of the number of immigrants is invalid for several reasons – even if your stats are true (source?).

    1) Does not account overall population since growth since then, ie proportionality.

    2) Doesn’t account for discrepancies of supply vs. demand then vs. now.

  74. paulie cannoli

    Yes, we are the most generous nation in the world. And that is an understatement.

    What makes you say that? Europe, Canada, etc. have all that and more, and many millions of immigrants.

  75. G.E. Post author

    Marzullo – Hmm… What’s worse? The tax with the rebate or the ultra-regressive tax without the rebate? We already tax the poor through inflation (which Barr has NOTHING to say about), let’s tax them on food and diapers too! VERY libertarian!

    FairTax with rebate = biggest welfare plan in U.S. history

    FairTax without rebate = biggest redistribution of tax burden from rich to poor since feudalism

    Either way, FairTax = suck

  76. TheOriginalAndy

    “Baldwin seems to, scratch that, Baldwin does not understand the self-correcting nature of free markets. He doesn’t seem to understand the folly of central planning — i.e. his arbitrary 10% tariff and his centrally planned immigration quotas.

    I’m not saying the guy is unredeemable or not worth voting for. I’m just pointing out his flaws for the sake of balance.”

    Paulie and GE, I NEVER said that Baldwin is perfect or that he is a hardcore libertarian. My point is that compared to the other candidates in the race who will be on enough state ballots to theoretically win the election (McCain, Obama, Barr, Nader, and McKinney), that Baldwin is probably the best, as in the least toxic.

    Believe me, I’d RATHER vote for a Libertarian Party candidate for President as I voted for Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I just see Bob Barr as being a flawed candidate, flawed to the point where he is probably less libertarian and less trustworthy than Chuck Baldwin.

    As I said above, I think that Paulie is chosing style over substance in reguards to his comments about not considering Baldwin when he is considering McKinney (and I say this as someone who actually LIKES McKinney for a leftist Green). Going issue for issue, Baldwin is clearly the better choice.

    Baldwin opposes the war in Iraq and an interventionist foreign policy in general.

    Baldwin wants to repeal the Patriot Act.

    Baldwin wants to shut down the Federal Reserve and return to a sound money policy.

    Baldwin wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.

    Baldwin wants to get the government out of Social Security. (Just imagine never being asked for a Social(ist) (In)Security Number again.)

    Baldwin wants to repeal gun control laws.

    Baldwin wants to end the welfare state.

    These are all big issues and Baldwin is on the proper (from a pro-liberty perspective) side of them.

    While I like Cynthia McKinney for a leftist-Green, I could go through her platform and pick out some things that I disagree with as well, such as her disasterous anti-free market healthcare and minimum wage plans (both of which Baldwin opposes).

    Believe me, I’d rather vote for a Harry Browne or a Michael Badnarik or an Aaron Russo or a Ron Paul, or for that matter, a Mary Ruwart or a Steve Kubby, however, since none of them are going to be on the ballot, and since Chuck Baldwin will be on the ballot, and since the other choices of candidates on the ballot are going to be John McCain, Barack Obama, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney, I have got to consider Chuck Baldwin to be a viable option if I am going to vote this November.

  77. TheOriginalAndy

    Bob Barr’s support for the FairTax is (or was, I haven’t checked it recently) on his campaign website.

  78. G.E. Post author

    Ron Paul was on C-SPAN2 today, and there is NO DOUBT that his view on abortion is VERY DIFFERENT from that of Baldwin’s.

    He was 100% explicit in saying he was AGAINST a federal solution. No ambiguity whatsoever.

  79. brandy casino

    Hi My wife and I would like to thank you all for this web site. Hours of pleasure and all

Leave a Reply

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