The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign. . .
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party
candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November
election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party
candidate.
This is especially great news to those of us who voted for Baldwin last election as VP to Micheal Peroutka. For all of you Constitution Party supporters, this comes as a great boost!
Chuck Baldwin, in his column today thanked Dr. Paul and talked about his position.
As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.
Posts
3 comments:
Damon,
Here's something for you to think about...
I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Sometime afterward, I read a post by a fellow blogger on another blog, wherein he stated that a 'true secessionist' should not vote for anyone for President in the general election. To do so would be hypocritical. He said that the act of voting for a President of the union of states would be tantamount to an affirmation of the union of states.
The political philosophy of a secessionist is expressed, in part, by not affirming a mandatory, or forced, union of states. A secessionist thus agrees, in principle, with a voluntary confederacy of sovereign republics. Therefore, taking the position of a secessionist, then, would be to abstain from voting for President. Thus, a secessionist would then be true to his convictions by not affirming the union of states in its present form.
A good friend of mine is a close friend of Chuck Baldwin and also one of Chuck's campaign managers. Our friendship will not suffer from this election, but as I remain true to my secessionist convictions I cannot cast a vote for President.
I like Ron's platform and I like Chuck's platform, but, on a deeper level, my convictions compel me to be part of the mechanism that Jefferson Davis alluded to when he said, "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
Your thoughts on this?
This is a de-facto federal/central/national government with an office for president up for election this fall. Our CSA was defeated. Our soldiers perished or were disbanded by their officers. Our fathers lost the war for southern independance and I hate that we've suffered ever since.
Oh! That Lee and Jackson would have marched on Washington DC after Manassas!
Alas, we live in a conquered land. How shall we reclaim the civil government for righteousness?
Aha! There is a great and honorable man of God running for president! Please Lord, deliver us from evil. Raise up a righteous leader to free us from this tyrrany!
Freebird,
You make a good point that should be considered, but if there is a truly Constitutional presidential candidate that agrees with the political philosophies that our nation was founded upon (right to self-determination, VERY limited federal government, state sovereignty, etc.), I can in good conscience vote for that man.
At the same time I realize that "revolutions" (if you will) are never top down and one man in the executive position has very little influence when the judicial and legislative branches are rotten.
Given the political climate of the lay Americans that show their support en masse for either a Republican or Democrat (and this includes many Southerners sadly), I do not foresee a "democratic" change for Constitutional government and so while secession seems to me the only viable option, it is yet to become ripe.
One more point. . . In the last two general elections, I have voted Constitution Party and to see the numbers grow as they have excites me to the fact that folks are coming around. When some of the folks out there begin to see the numbers grow, they may be open to the possibility of a truly great leader; not a lesser of two evils.
As a side note, I have not cast a single vote for Senators or Congressmen as I refuse to vote for the scoundrels that have been on our ballots. My vote is reserved for a godly man of immense integrity who will promise to obey the Constitution.
I might also add that in the 1860 election, secession was being talked about and still the Southern states cast their votes overwhelmingly for John Breckinridge (Southern Dem) and John Bell (Constitutional Union).
I guess in short, I would say that I think I can support a presidential candidate and at the same time desire to see a free South. Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment