Posted under Chuck Baldwin & Conservatism & Constitution Party
Constitution Party Presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin has received several recent endorsements from prominent conservatives. I don’t understand how any serious conservative could vote for anyone other than Baldwin, who has been fighting the good fight for years while McCain was voting for amnesty, bailouts, and stem-cell research, making common cause with Kennedy and Feingold, stabbing his Republican colleagues in the back, pandering to the liberal media, and vilifying Christians, but I understand that some conservatives may still be contemplating a vote for McAmnesty. Let’s see what these other wise conservatives have to say.
The American Conservative’s long awaited and much anticipated endorsement issue is just out and it includes two Baldwin endorsements. Am Con’s 2004 endorsement issue likewise contained two high profile conservative endorsements, Samuel Francis and Taki Theodoracopulos, for then Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka.
Peter Brimelow – Mr. Brimelow runs the anti-immigration website VDARE.COM and is the author of the 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster. This book was way ahead of its time. Brimelow is the former editor of Forbes and National Review. He was unceremoniously removed as the editor of National Review (a badge of honor) because his thoughts on immigration were too politically incorrect.Â
In August, the Census Bureau finally acknowledged what has been obvious for some time: because of the massive nontraditional immigration triggered by the 1965 Immigration Act, and the simultaneous collapse of law enforcement against illegal immigration, American whites will become a minority by 2042… This is a demographic transformation without precedent. It should at least be discussed. But incredibly, both major party candidates have tacitly agreed to bury the issue.
So I would vote for Chuck Baldwin, the candidate of the Constitution Party, who wants no amnesty, no more illegal immigration, and a reduction in legal immigration.
Joseph Sobran – Mr. Sobran is a conservative columnist almost without peer and was also once a senior editor of National Review. He too was sacked by the flagship magazine of American “conservatism†for being … well … um … too conservative. (Notice a pattern here?)
… he is a godly, reasonable, wise, and intelligent man—as worthy a candidate as I ever expect to see. He knows what the Tenth Amendment means; he understands the crucial 45th number of The Federalist, which reminds us that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,†whereas those remaining with the states are “numerous and indefinite.†Furthermore, he knows what the Holy Scriptures mean when they speak of a woman being “with childâ€; and no amount of pseudoconstitutional gobbledygook about “choice†or “privacy†can shake him on this point. His horror at legal abortion is still fresh.
I’ve been reading Chuck Baldwin’s essays for several years. My first reaction to them was to wish we had rulers who could read him, grasp what he was saying, and take it to heart. I never dreamed I would have the chance to vote for him myself.
Paleoconservative favorite TakiMag.com has also posted several endorsements. Four additional prominent conservatives reveal they will be pulling the lever for Baldwin.
Richard Spencer – Mr. Spencer is the editor of TakiMag.
Chuck Baldwin will most certainly not win next Tuesday, he’s not even on the ballot in all states. He’s the only candidate, however, who’s starting point is the Constitution, and who’s seriously talking about individual and economic liberty, a foreign policy for America, and reducing both legal and illegal immigration (you know, all that extremist, unpatriotic stuff we write about at Takimag.) On top of it all, Baldwin has a sharp mind and is a gentleman.
Jack Hunter – Mr. Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger, is a columnist and a radio talk show host in Charleston,
I have two tests that any candidate must pass in order to win my vote: Is he committed to a traditional foreign policy and is he serious about stopping illegal immigration? Chuck Baldwin passes with flying colors.
Paul Gottfried – Dr. Gottfried is probably the leading expert on the American “conservative†movement. Check out his bibliography at Amazon. All his books are well worth reading.
Despite my desire to see John McCain and his brand of neocon-Republicanism soundly defeated, I can’t stand the idea of awarding my vote to his leftist, black-nationalist adversary Barack Obama. I’ll therefore do in this presidential race what I’ve done in every other presidential contest since 1988 (when I allowed myself to be talked into voting for George I), that is, cast my ballot for neither national party…
I am fully aware that Baldwin, who is a dignified, grammatical speaker as well as a pious Evangelical Christian, cannot possibly win the presidential race. But I am not voting for him because I think he could ever win this squalid, media-rigged contest. I am supporting Baldwin because he is someone whose views I agree with and whose person and demeanor I respect. And I see in
Baldwin a presidential candidate who would be suited for a less degenerate society than our own. He is the closest approximation to the kind of American leaders of an earlier generation whom I could admire, and since neither presidential frontrunner is a figure I would ever want to see in the presidency, I shall endorse my ideal instead of an odious caricature.
John Derbyshire – Mr. Derbyshire is a contributor to National Review Online (NRO). He is one of only two (as far as I know) NRO contributors who endorsed Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barak Obama, was the other one. Something tells me that Mr. Derbyshire’s Baldwin endorsement will not make the NRO blog. A search right before posting this revealed no mention of it.
I cleave to the quaint principle that one should speak up for, and vote for, whichever candidate best approximates one’s own ideals and principles. Ron Paul was my choice in the primaries, and I had the pleasure of voting for him in February. He was not the choice of Republicans nationwide, however. Of remaining candidates, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party is the only one whose platform is within a mile of my own views, so I shall be voting for him. Mr. Baldwin has also had Ron Paul’s endorsement, so that is an added inducement.
Prior to this recent slew of endorsements, Chuck Baldwin was endorsed by heroic constitutionalist, Ron Paul. He has also been endorsed by American Conservative blogger and paleoconservative favorite Daniel Larison.
If you are a serious conservative and are still considering a vote for McBailout, please read the above linked endorsements in their entirety. The Southern Avenger video is particularly good for those concerned with the tactical wisdom of a third party vote. Take the advice of the seasoned conservatives above and give Chuck Baldwin your vote. Don’t “waste†your vote on more of the same.
Joe on 03 Nov 2008 at 8:16 pm #
The Constitution Party will lead us all to ruin it if does any better in the future.
Apart from the White House, we could lose a Republican Senate seat in Oregon because of a Constitution Party candidate. This is at a time when it is critical to try to hold as many Republican Senate seats as possible to prevent a catastrophic Democratic supermajority. If the Democrats do realize their wildest dreams and get to 60 in the Senate, EVERYTHING they will do will devastate all the causes that the Constitution Party holds dear.
The Republican Party has many problems but if they were like the Constitution Party they would NEVER command a majority. That is just a reality of life. The Constitution can never and will never win.
The only rational alternative is for all Constitution and Libertarian people to get back into the two major parties and try to take them over. There is just no other rational alternative that I can see. The third party route is a dead and and is hopeless.
I shudder to think of what will happen to this country if the Constitution Party runs candidates in every district in the future and gets 15% of the vote. Dems: 50% Reps: 35% Cons: 15% The abortionists and statists would have an iron grip, actually a death grip, on this country.
Is this really something anybody who cares about unborn children and about America’s future could possibly ever want?
roho on 03 Nov 2008 at 8:24 pm #
“In questions of power, Then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the CONSTITUTION”
Thomas Jefferson 1798.
BALDWIN 2008!
Patrick Hall on 04 Nov 2008 at 12:24 am #
I was guilty of voting for the Republican candidate in the very first election I could: 1992, GHW Bush. In 1994, I voted for Newt Gingrich. By 1996, I realized the Republican Party was a farce. It is controlled by Liberals, and use social issues (gay marriage and abortion) as wedges in their “Southern Strategy” to win the Southern vote.
I have told my family (to no avail, as I have no real power in the family, outside of over my wife) all to vote for Chuck Baldwin. They still don’t see that the Republican Party is Liberal, and honestly believe more Republican government will stop gay “marriage” and the vacuuming of a baby’s brains out of its skull.
The Republican Party doesn’t want to stop abortion or end gay “marriage”. They need those issues to scare Southerners to vote for them. For example, the co-chairperson of the Republican National Committee is Jo Ann Davidson, noted “abortion rights” activist, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/14/politics/14conserv.html
Bede on 04 Nov 2008 at 4:30 am #
Red,
This is a wonderful overview of Baldwin endorsements.
Patroon on 04 Nov 2008 at 4:55 am #
Hopefully this will lead to the CP’s biggest presidential showing yet. They’ve certainly have had more attention and endorsements than ever before.
Vanessa on 04 Nov 2008 at 2:15 pm #
This is what Noah Webster had to say about voting. I too am voting for Baldwin.
302. Remedy for public evils.—The command of God is, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God,†2 Sam. 23:3. This command prescribes the only effectual remedy for public evils. It is an absurd and impious sentiment, that religious character is not necessary for public officers. So far is this from being true, that it is one of the principal qualifications, for any man making or administering laws. When the form of government admits men to office by hereditary right, rulers may or may not be good men; the people have no choice, and must submit. But in representative governments, if rulers are bad men, it is generally the fault of the people. The electors may indeed be deceived in regard to the principles of the man they choose; they are sometimes most woefully deceived. But in general, the calamity of having evil counselors, legislators, judges, and ministerial officers, is the fault of the electors. They do not regard the precept, to choose “just men, who will rule in the fear of God.†They choose men, not because they are just men, men of religion and integrity, but soley for the sake of supporting a party. This is a fruitful source of public evils. But as surely as there is a God in heaven, who exercises a moral government over the affairs of this world, so certainly will the neglect of the divine command, in the choice of rulers, be followed by bad laws and a bad administration; by laws unjust or partial, by corruption, tyranny, impunity of crimes, waste of public money, and a thousand other evils. Men may devise and adopt new forms of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches, and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be, no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law.
Vanessa
DONALD RUTLEDGE on 05 Nov 2008 at 2:13 am #
AS A VETERAN OF 22 YEARS I VOTED FOR CHUCK BALDWIN MY GUT FEELING IS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED TO BE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY AND THESE AMERICAS’ ARE GOING TO LEAD INTO SOMETHING THEY WON’T LIKE BUT THEIR VOTING FOR THIS CHANGE (MARXISM)