Posted under Chuck Baldwin
Here’s what he says about Chuck Baldwin:
Chuck Baldwin represents ideological purity for traditionalist conservatives but is accompanied by some serious problems as well. His desire to reopen the investigation into 9/11 is an early warning sign, and further investigation reveals radical comments on 9/11 as “punishment from God for American sin†and his numerous affiliations with anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic characters in radical Baptist circles. Character counts in a candidate, and his tendency towards the support of extremist theories is enough to worry any clear-headed intellectual. Neither a political chameleon nor a radical conspiracy theorist, Ralph Nader offers a conservative alternative.
I like Nader, don’t get me wrong, but I found this surprising. Can Baldwin keep Paul’s less traditional and/or less Baptist followers?
I’m unaware of what radicals NA is referring to – hope it’s not me 
(I’m Presbyterian). To an extent some criticism of Jewish and Catholic, as well as Presbyterian (e.g. PC USA) organisations and even general political tendencies can be right clear-headed, but people (esp. the politically interested who are often a little off) are prone to get carried away.
Paul accepted support from Don Black and others of his political stripe, but perhaps he didn’t associate with them. Paul certainly got in trouble with Lew Rockwell’s writings.
Should Baldwin distance himself from more extreme elements; should he take more moderate stances; or is the American right hopeless fragmented? If traditionalists of various stripes cannot unite against globalism, perhaps only bland leftists with no religious identity (or at least no open religious identity) can unite us.
Weaver on 04 Oct 2008 at 1:15 pm #
Comments like “[9/11 was] punishment from God for American sin” aren’t inherently dangerous. I at least have said similar things regarding other bad events, but saying such doesn’t mean I actually believe I know their cause. They’re said as reassurance – to remind ourselves that God is looking out for us and will punish us for sinning. How He acts however is unknown to us.
Such statements can also be symbolic. E.g. Christians don’t like homoeroticism. And when disease spreads among homoerotics, the Christians might say “God is punishing them” when the Christians actually believe the promiscuity and unnatural form of intercourse of the homosexuals are to blame.
In the case of 9/11, Baldwin then might have meant our sins are to blame in a symbolic sense: America enraged bin Laden, and bin Laden attacked in response. Had America not been meddling then, bin Laden wouldn’t have attacked.
The Christian choice of words though can understandably sound alien, especially in a society such as ours that creates such nutty Christian leaders (most of them are liberal nuts) and portrays them as negatively as does our press.
One thing is for sure: Baldwin is not a crazy evangelical seeking to bring about the end of the world. But… he is a Christian, and he does speak in a certain manner.
Weaver on 04 Oct 2008 at 1:27 pm #
It’d be interested to hear what others think with regard to Christian language.
Buddy Witherspoon, who failed to take Graham’s Republican nomination, suggested South Carolinians fall on their faces and pray for the drought to end. In addition however he also made policy suggestions.
Witherspoon similarly doesn’t wish to bring about the end of the world or anything else crazy Christians are supposed to believe in. But… he is a Christian, and as such he does believe in the power of prayer.
—
In addition to asking God for help, prayer helps man to strengthen his own resolve to solve a problem and allows him to ponder the ideal from a more objective sense, rather than from his own biased view. Another strength of prayer: it reassures us that God is with us. We are expected to do our duty, and we can do nothing more, nor should we wish to do anything less. This allows Christians to struggle against all odds.
So prayer has a practical application, even if one accepts (for argumentation) that there’s no God to act on the prayers.
In conclusion: yes, many so-called and misguided Christians today are nuts; we live in interesting times… However, I’m unaware of any evidence suggesting Baldwin is one of these.
—
9/11 truthers were often Paul supporters.
Chris Hewlett on 04 Oct 2008 at 1:32 pm #
Everyone here better get off his ideologically pure horse and cast a protest vote against rapping in the White House. I can see P. Diddy now on inauguration day. Give it up and vote for McCain. You’ve got to know when to fold ‘em.
Weaver on 04 Oct 2008 at 1:33 pm #
Obama’s no different… There’s not a Peso’s worth of difference.
Chris Hewlett on 04 Oct 2008 at 1:52 pm #
Of course there’s no difference except I don’t think McCain will be rapping and hip-hopping on inauguration day.
RedPhillips on 04 Oct 2008 at 3:41 pm #
This is ridiculous! Ralph Nader is unwilling to do anything about the slaughter of innocent unborns. Don’t talk to me about character. Nothing Baldwin could do would indicate the moral blind spot that turning a blind eye to dead babies does. Nader means well and seems a decent guy by leftist standards, but he is blinded by his leftism. He claims to be a Christian but he is unwilling to defend innocents, and he is a typical liberal on gays. I’m sorry, but those are not negotiable positions for a Christian.
While it is probably unwise to speculate that any particular disaster is the consequence of sin, read the Old Testament. It is full of examples of problems befalling Israel and other nations due to its corporate national sin. To reject that such things could happen is to reject the Bible.
And Baldwin has not endorsed 9/11 conspiracy theories. He has said he doesn’t know, and is open to a new investigation. Being open to a new investigation, as Ron Paul was, seems necessary considering the commonness of such views on the dissident right and is essentially harmless.
As for Catholics (where did that come from?), Baldwin is an Independent Fundamental Baptist. As such, he clearly believes that Catholics get some things wrong, and they get soteriology seriously wrong. Sola fide hardly seems a trivial incidental. But traditionalist Catholics return the favor toward us “heretical” Protestants. Baldwin has actually fallen all over himself to be ecumenical. I think this is partially because he is a pastor and figured it would come up and partially to smooth over and help unite the Mormons in the CP after the disaster of Tampa.
And anti-Semitism? Where the heck did that come from and what are you even talking about? Again as a conservative Protestant, Baldwin obviously believes that Jews need to accept Jesus as their savior (Is that what you are talking about?) but so do Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. Since Baldwin is a dispensational pre-mil, he has been accused of being too philo-Semitic by the anti-dispensational obsessives. He can’t be both.
Again, what associations could Baldwin have that would be as morally compromising as the baby killer crowd?
Andrew T. on 04 Oct 2008 at 4:24 pm #
RedPhillips is the voice of reason once again. I agree 100%.
Yeah, this endorsement of Nader came from out of nowhere.
roho on 04 Oct 2008 at 5:14 pm #
I second the voice of Red Phillips on this thread!
God has no choice in punishing America, or appoligize to Soddom and Gomorrah.
As for those that fail to see the need for further investigations being considered “Conspiracy Nuts”:
1. It is a fact that the Japanese code had been broke prior to Pearl Harbor and the “Day Of Infamy” speech written 2 weeks earlier.
2. The “Gulf of Tonkin” incident has been proven a hoax.
3. The attack on the “U.S.S. Liberty” has finally been proven intentional.
I would love to believe everything that my Government tells me……….But wisdom prevails. BALDWIN 2008!
Weaver on 04 Oct 2008 at 5:21 pm #
Roho,
the true nuts are those with faith in their government, eh?
Red,
excellent post. Heh, maybe I should have asked you to write the posted reply.
Weaver on 04 Oct 2008 at 5:25 pm #
It’d be interesting to hear what Dr. Fleming thinks of religious speculations about fate, punishment, mercy, etc.
Patrick J. Ford on 04 Oct 2008 at 5:44 pm #
His associations with folks like Jerome Corsi are enough for me to brand him an extremist, or at least a man comfortable in the company of extremists.
As for the need for further investigation into 9/11, my faith is certainly not in the government, but in the hundreds of physics professors and architects and demolition experts that have adequately put to rest the concerns of conscientious doubters in the government story.
It is worth pointing out that I never accused Baldwin of being anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, just that his associations are worrisome.
I do not need a lecture on the Old Testament. What I find laughable is that every time a disaster befalls this or any other country, religious nutjobs are waiting in the wings to talk Soddom and Gomorrah. I recognize God’s prerogative to punish sin in this world. I also understand that men, independent of God’s will, can perpetrate an evil act on other men without divine intervention. The more we talk about God’s role, the less effective we will be in actually addressing the cause of the attacks: American arrogance around the world.
Patrick J. Ford on 04 Oct 2008 at 5:59 pm #
As for the abortion issue, it certainly is a difficult one. But as easy as it would be to write a candidate off because of an ideological disagreement on the issue, I’d rather look at what kind of role the President is actually going to have, and how a President Nader would treat the issue. A devout localist and believer in small, local control, he has said himself that overturning Roe would not be a big deal, because it would return authority to the states, something he does not see as particularly dangerous.
I stand with Andrew Bacevich (although not with the same candidate) in believing that American moral fiber is taking a bigger hit because of our foreign adventures than due to the abortion issue. We have elected devout pro-lifers for years and never seen an end to Roe. It is an issue “conservative” candidates trot out to sucker us into voting for a bad candidate every election.
And, yes, Dr. Fleming’s thoughts would be worth reading.
Bede on 04 Oct 2008 at 6:21 pm #
Nader’s platform on immigration is better than McCain’s and Obama’s, although he says little about things like birthright citizenship.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections.html
You do however get ridiculous comments like this in Nader’s platform: “After more than 300 years of de facto affirmative action to benefit white males, we definitely need affirmative action for people of color and women to offset enduring historic wrongs as well as present day inequalities.”
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
RedPhillips on 04 Oct 2008 at 7:19 pm #
In hindsight, I think my remarks above were rather intemperate. I personally think Baldwin is a very good candidate and deserves more respect from paleos. That he is not getting it has been VERY frustrating to me so I popped off. Also, my feelings about Nader are more nuanced than I portrayed.
I would say this.
“His associations with folks like Jerome Corsi are enough for me to brand him an extremist, or at least a man comfortable in the company of extremists.”
Patrick, we are all extremists. Extremism is a matter of perspective. By the standards of the mainstream GOP centric conservative movement, this website is extremist. Your website is extremist. Ron Paul is extremist. Talking about the Fed and gold is extremist. Actually wanting to follow the Constitution is extremist. Anyone who entertains third party voting is an extremist. This is very unfortunate but true.
Third Party, alternative, dissident, outside the mainstream, far etc. politics is a dirty business. It is, by its very nature, going to attract elements that are not conventional. Some unsavory. Some well-meaning but misguided. Some correct. Despite my paragraph above, I do think I know what you mean by extremist. I don’t think I’m one. I don’t think you are one. I don’t think Ron Paul is one. And I don’t think Corsi is one. (Corsi’s views on Iran are very troublesome, but so are McCain’s and Palin’s.) But I think being able to be “comfortable in the company of extremist” is virtually part of the job description of a Third Party candidate. For the foreseeable future, there can be no alternative right movement that doesn’t include conspiracy theorist and “militia” types. A movement of thoughtful, pristine paleos would be able to meet in a phone booth. As the pseudo-right is exposed and our ideas are normalized, the movement will broaden and “normalize.”
Dylan Hales on 05 Oct 2008 at 1:53 am #
I am torn between Nader and Baldwin myself.
My biggest criticism of Baldwin is that he seems to be far to comfortable with conspiracism in general. 9/11 (and he has definitely flirted with the truthers at minimum) is really the tip of the iceburg. For example I have no problem with those who have moral issues with homosexuality, but Baldwin has argued and advocated for the view that their is some sort of gay cabal attempting to takeover the major political parties to promote their secret agenda. Opinions like that are not born from religious conviction; they are born from paranoia.
My biggest criticism of Nader is that he has run too many times. Though I think the cult of personality problems associated with other multiple time candidates are not as dangerous with Mr. Nader, they are still there. Bottom line it is hard for me to get motivated for a candidate who never seems to leave a movement behind him, despite lovely promises.
It’s a tough call and I remain undecided, but I understand and agree with much of what Mr. Ford has to say.
Jack Hunter on 05 Oct 2008 at 6:51 am #
I always second Red Phillips, as a rule. The same goes for Dylan Hales.
I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin for president, because as a conservative he’s a solid choice I can be comfortable with. If he were not running I would vote for Ralph Nader, who as a patriotic leftist, is still preferable and closer to my own politics than McCain or Obama.
So, McCain – who is in league with the pro-partial birth abortion, pro-illegal immigration, pro-NAFTA, pro-bailout and pro-war Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani – is still considered worth voting for by some “conservatives,” yet Baldwin’s “conspiracy theory” leanings make him beyond the pale?
I will take a 100,000,000 fanatical conspiracy theorists over 1 mainstream Republican who blindly trusts his goverment at all costs, so long as a Republican is in charge.
If you’re a liberal – vote Nader. If you’re a conservative – vote Baldwin. Just don’t vote Obama or McCain.
Jack
roho on 05 Oct 2008 at 2:01 pm #
Exactly Jack………….The Two Party System in America has evolved into something akin to Profesional Wrestling.
Frank Griglonis on 05 Oct 2008 at 6:20 pm #
as a saying goes, “you pays your money and you takes your choice(s)…realistically, neither mr. nader or dr. balwin have any chance of being
elected… however, as a military veteran with
considerable experience in high security areas and over 30 years of federal employment, with various agencies (now forcibly retired) the 911 scenario is patently ludicrous…and i had
been offered appointments to west point,
rhoades and ivy league scholarships, economic
fellowships, and cabinet positions in the past…
mr. nader’s people have done (and are continuing
to do) some very good (but relatively innefectual work) and i find dr. balwin a very intellegent and well read individual who strives towards moderation (as has dr. paul)…this time around my buck goes to chuck,
an extremist
Jan Rogozinski on 05 Oct 2008 at 6:48 pm #
There is small problem here.
Put aside the Jewish scriptures, which have God constantly punishing the Jews for their crimes against God’s laws.
And, as every orthodox Jews thus must belief, God sent the so-called Holocaust.
However, look at the Christian scriptures. Orthodox Christians [I'm Russian Orthodox] and also all Orthodox Cristian’s, believe that God does NOT intervene in daily events. Rather those events (e.g., hurricanes, sexually promiscuous persons catching AIDs) are the results of universal natural laws, which God created and which he constantly maintains and supports (see Paul to the Romans).
(i) If God intervened in and directed our lives, then we would puppets on a string and would not have free will. And if we have no free will, then we cannot make choices, so that we cannot sin.
(ii) Most people that want God to directly intervene want Him to do so precisely because they have broken God’s laws. It’s a Little like someone that jumps off the World Trade Center, Adan then on the way down asks God to save him by repealing God’s law of gravity.
I suspect that God must like his laws, such as the law of gravity, or he wild stop maintaining them in existence.
(iii) Nor does God intervene to stop others from sinning by harming us–because that would take away THEIR free will. Think of the Trials of Paul.
For example, God does not, has, not, and will not stop abortion. That Job is up to us. God has given us all the power we need to stop abortion, so there is zero need for him to intervene. But we don’t want to use the powers that God has given us.
(iv) All orthodox Christians (as opposed to witchcraft fake-christians liek Pailin) know and bleive that evil does nto exist, and taht the Devil has no pwoers. The only power teh Devil has (and taht Bush and McCain have) is the power to cloud men’s minds. God did NOT drive 5 million Iraquis from their country, including amost 100% of the millions of Iraqui Christians–whehter Protestnat, Catholic, or Orthodox. We, you and I, drove Chrsitianity out of the Holy Land and the Middle East by allowing the devil/Bush to cloud our minds with hsi lies about Sadam’s WMD.
I won’t vote for Baldwin becuase he is a “Evangelical” Theocrat and thus cannot appeal to non-Evangelicals. It is a fact that orthodox chrsitians have much moer in common with orhtodox Sunni Muslims than they do with the kind of fake-Christian Evangelical Witchchraft church Pahlin attends. CunnuzaChristians.
Andrew T. on 06 Oct 2008 at 1:06 am #
Jan, I support Baldwin, and I’m not an evangelical Christian.
And I think it’s insulting to call talk about the Pentecostal church that way. Are they overly superstitious people who place a tremendous emphasis and have an undue fascination with miraculous-looking events they can’t explain? Definitely. Do they believe that the “signs” are coming from anywhere other than God Himself? No, of course not.
Morgan Mghee on 06 Oct 2008 at 1:41 am #
Chris Hewlett: Diddy certainly qualifies monetarily to vote Republican, but he doesn’t. According to Karl Rove, this means he is too well educated to vote Republican.
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans – unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.”
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/karlrove/a/karlrovequotes.htm
And as long as we’re at it, GOP=Republican. The Republican campaign is trying to distance itself from… itself! Many ballots across the country will carry a ‘Prefers GOP’ designation this year, rather than the clear and accurate ‘Prefers Republican’. Polling shows a significant number of people to not know the acronym is synonymous with the Republican and current administration.
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2008/06/30/dino_rossi_democrat http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/490535.html and despite the 25% of people who don’t know what that means, a judge said ‘it’s fine’. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/26/judge-gop-for-short-is-fine-on-wash-ballot/
Put an end to all of it, Vote Third Party!
RedPhillips on 06 Oct 2008 at 1:45 am #
“believe that God does NOT intervene in daily events.”
Jan, do you mean orthodox as in small o Christians? If you do, then that statement is simply wrong. God does not intervene directly in every event, but He certainly can and does at times. I have never even heard it suggested otherwise except by liberal anti-supernatural Christians, (and Deists), and they are certainly not orthodox. I don’t even think that statement is true for Orthodox capital O Christians. It is certainly not true of Catholics.
Pentecostals are a minority of evangelicals. They believe the sign gifts of the New Testament are still operative (Charismatics) and normative (Pentecostals).
Second, I really don’t have much tolerance for people prattling on about orthodoxy and fake evangelicals when they belong to a tradition that can’t get sola fide right. I have serious problems with evangelical fidelity to the GOP and support for the War, but evangelicals get the plain Scriptural doctrine of sola fide right. It practically defines them.
Marc on 06 Oct 2008 at 2:05 am #
Witchcraft? I’ve attended Pentecostal services many times, never knew I was practicing Witchcraft! Good thing I have geniuses like Jan to set me straight. *Cough Idiot *Cough
Patrick J. Ford on 06 Oct 2008 at 8:54 pm #
Jack, I’m a Russell Kirk type conservative voting for Nader, for the reasons I outlined. Baldwin’s associations with radical elements should be a point of concern, no?
Weaver on 06 Oct 2008 at 10:20 pm #
Mr. Ford,
if you’ve the time, I’d be interested in specific radical associations (maybe you could develop an article at your site or for TAC if you’re inclined). I admittedly like Corsi’s work against the NAU – though I’ve heard he can be conspiratorial (I’m unaware of whether this has a basis), and I obviously don’t like his foreign policy.
It might also be interesting were someone to produce a case for Nader being of poor judgement, though at the same time I’d hate to tear him down and I don’t want to spend my time on it right now.
Though he’s in favor of small government, I’m not particular to Nader’s affirmative action and gay rights stances. How this would play out in a Nader presidency, we don’t really know. Ideally he’d decentralise, but what if he’s to appoint judges or forced to choose federal policy?
Patrick J. Ford on 06 Oct 2008 at 10:33 pm #
I will be addressing criticisms of my endorsement soon, including a more in-depth discussion on Baldwin and on Nader’s several leftist views.
Weaver on 06 Oct 2008 at 10:54 pm #
Excellent! I look forward to it.
I mention Baldwin’s radical associations, but info. on:
would be of interest too.
Dylan Hales on 06 Oct 2008 at 11:18 pm #
Patrick,
Shoot me an email dylanwaco@gmail.com
Dylan
RedPhillips on 07 Oct 2008 at 12:45 pm #
Patrick, here is what you need to do IMO. You need to say specifically who some of these damaging associations are. You need to demonstrate why these associations are worse than some of Nader’s associations. And you need to demonstrate that these associations are somehow unique to Baldwin, not associations that are just generic to any alternative right-wing candidate. Are they different than the associations that Peroutka had? That Howard Phillips had? Etc. Otherwise you are just condemning all right-wing alternative candidates.
Andrew T. on 07 Oct 2008 at 5:15 pm #
“Baldwin’s associations with radical elements should be a point of concern, no?”
Maybe a point of concern, but is it nearly enough to justify dismissing him in favor of Nader?
And Nader is hardly free from associations with radical elements. In his case, though, the elements are overwhelmingly left-wing.