Chuck Baldwin and Darrel Castle to be interviewed tonight on RevolutionBroadcasting.com

The Constitution Party’s presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin and the Vice Presidential nominee Darrell Castle will be on RevolutionBroadcasting.com tonight (9/23/08) at 9PM ET. Once again if IPR readers have any questions for them I will do my best to have them included in the interview.

This entry was posted in Constitution Party and tagged , on by .

About VTV

Was a fierce Independent because of statements made in George Washington's farewell address about how the party system would damage the nation. (He was right). Became interested in the Libertarian party because of Ron Paul. I helped get Mike Gravel into the LP, and joined the party with him. And contrary to what people have said, we are not going anywhere. We are in the Libertarian party from now on. Get used to it.

9 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin and Darrel Castle to be interviewed tonight on RevolutionBroadcasting.com

  1. G.E.

    Read him this from the CP’s platform plank on trade.

    In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States.

    Ask him if he thinks Ron Paul agrees with it. Then ask him if he does. If he tries to avoid the question, ask him flat out: “Do you reject the CP platform’s position on trade?” Don’t let him have it both ways.

    Also: The CP platform equates “free trade” with socialism. Is Ron Paul, a free trader, a socialist?

  2. chuckmoulton

    Why not directly interview Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr here in addition? They could be asked their positions on abortion, gay marriage, gambling, etc. and lay it out for all to judge.

    It seems like a lot of people are arguing about what the candidates’ positions are… just straight up asking would be a lot easier.

    I’d recommend asking where the candidate stands on the issues with a given set of simple options like “prohibit federally”, “legalize/decriminalize”, “state’s rights”. Let them elaborate with a paragraph if they want, but don’t let them send a paragraph without providing a clearcut 2-3 word answer too. Such tap dancing should properly be recorded as “refused to answer the question”.

  3. libertyinlaw

    CP Platform: Tariffs and Trade

    Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”

    Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers. We oppose, therefore, the unconstitutional transfer of authority over U.S. trade policy from Congress to agencies, domestic or foreign, which improperly exercise policy-setting functions with respect to U.S. trade policy.

    We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of these United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all other agreements wherein agencies other than the Congress of these United States improperly assume responsibility for establishing American trade policies.

    Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of these United States during most of the nation’s history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

    Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy.

    Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers.

    This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

  4. libertyinlaw

    It’s not about what either candidate personally “feels.” It’s not about what a candidate thinks is good or bad. It is about what the Constitution provides for.

    In most of the cases people are concerned about, the Constitution wisely leaves those issues to the states.

    Chuck Baldwin is a Constitutionalist. No matter what his moral convictions, none will take more precent than the oath of office that he takes to follow the Supreme Law of the Land.

    The Constitution doesn’t give him authority to use the government to do what he thinks is morally right or good. It limits his power and he respects that.

    This is the concept of “Liberty in Law.” Look how much liberty the people and the states have when our governing representatives follow the law.

    We don’t have to play a guessing game at each election trying to figure out where candidates stand on the “issues” or what ideas they have. We just make sure our representatives have studied the Constitution and are committed to it. And when they are in office, we hold them to it. Simple as that.

    Come on Liberty lovers! The Constitution brings people together. It is the law of our land, and our governing representatives are supposed to rule by that law and nothing else. Hence the “rule of law.”
    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2006/cbarchive_20060523.html

  5. G.E.

    libertyinlaw – Chuck Baldwin is on record lying and saying his views on trade are the same as Ron Paul’s.

    The CP’s platform plank on trade is NOT the same as Baldwin’s, and both (arguably in the case of the CP) are constitutional. However, Ron Paul’s views are constitutional, too, and they’re pro-capitalist, unlike the CP.

    So this is one issue where the “federal” cop out is not sufficient.

    Is Baldwin, like Paul, for free trade?

    Is he, like the CP, a hardcore anti-Jeffersonian protectionist?

    Or is he somewhere in the middle?

    He can’t have it both (or all three) ways.

Leave a Reply

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